Yeah this seems so... - 2001 creating a WISP using a single cable modem- type of doing things.
I don’t want to use NAT64 to squish a V6 packet on the V4 internet, I want it to automagically tunnel V4 traffic from the customer to the NAT64 gateway where it can go on its merry way if there is no V6 destination address for the other end. Same thing but different words. Really, I want to stop having to acquire more V4 addresses. That is truly the ONLY goal. From: Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:54 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64 Let me see if I can help the 'light go on'. Forget IPv6 for a second. You assign all of your customers addresses from 100.64.0.0/10, then use a standard, garden variety (but preferably at least somewhat carrier grade) NAT box to NAT them to the internet. The customers computers talk IPv4, the NAT box does IPv4 to IPv4 NAT (using addresses you already have) and everything is happy. This is dirt cheap to do and requires very little existing infrastructure change. You can then add non-NATed IPv6 on top of this so each customer also gets a new shiny IPv6 address which isn't NAT'ed. NAT64 is expensive and can be buggy since you're trying to squish a heavy IPV6 packet into the IPV4 internet. This avoids this problem. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: 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. -- Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com
