Exactly, this is what we need to solve. No more new V4 addresses and only
V6 going forward.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically
routable
V4 address.
We will be out of addresses very soon.
With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just
the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses.
Unless there is something I do not know here?
No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and
hope you keep us all posted.
-----Original Message----- From: Matt
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP? I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose. Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
Why use NAT64 again?
I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no
NAT
required.
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs. Takes
a
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner. If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
