For what it’s worth, acquiring more IPv4 space is much preferred…. if you figure $8-$10 per subscriber when purchasing the IP blocks (assuming that’s needed) then perhaps increase your installation charge by $10 to absorb that cost?
Dual stack is truly the best solution hands down … everything else comes with some variations of headaches - no different than just NAT did in IPv4 world in the first place if you were/are doing that today. In our own case, we offer all end users public IPv4 addresses and where technologically possible we offer dual stack. I have worked through transitional technologies for IPv6 in the past and it gave me massive headaches so would only ever suggest someone to look at them when no other choice … to continue offering public IPv4 addresses then yes we have already had to find ways to acquire additional IP blocks which involved noticeable expenses of course. > On Aug 1, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > > I could also argue here that ipv4 pricing is still continuing to rise, and > will do so for the foreseeable future. Buying it now will result in a > valuable resource as long as you don't wait too long to sell it :) > > > On Aug 1, 2016 6:00 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 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) <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:54 PM > To: af <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 > <http://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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <http://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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Chuck McCown > Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> | http://www.packetflux.com > <http://www.packetflux.com/> > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> > <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >
