Costs are rising pretty fast.  But yeah, why change if you don’t have to.  So, 
Dennis, create V6 in a box that will allow us to assign only V6 to all new 
customers but will do the CGNAT for us at the edge for those times the 
customers have to visit V4 land.  

From: Dennis Burgess 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

I would totally agree here. We have deployed IPv6 quite a bit for clients, our 
networks etc.  However, the major issue is the hosting companies, most big 
guys, google, amazon, etc all support IPv6, heck even Sonar does now! Hahah, 
but until the cost of IPv4 addresses is so high that no one; even the major 
guys can afford it, IPv6 deployment will keep stalling.  

 

 

Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

 

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 

Office: 314-735-0270

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

 

Actually in my opinion what we need is better IPv6 adoption in general and this 
becomes a non-problem quickly :)

 

I know .. good theory … and “we” are getting better though …. a lot of 
providers have gotten their heads out of the clouds in the past few years alone 
….

 

 

  On Oct 27, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

   

  What we all need, is a low cost solution to stop needing more V4 IPs.  

   

  If it is CGN at the edge with a limited pool of V4, so be it.  

   

  But I want a solid solution that can be trusted.

  And I want and expert to come drop it into my company.  

   

  From: Paul Stewart 

  Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:23 AM

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

   

  while I’m not a fan of NAT64, CGN etc (but understand in some situations the 
need for it), I completely agree that companies will be looking for consultants 
to help with this in some scenarios (both large and small companies alike) - 
this has been ongoing in some larger companies for many years already (IPv6 
adoption) and often through resident engineer placements from vendors  

   

   

    On Oct 27, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

     

    Some consultant needs to specialize in this and help folks provision, 
configure, deploy, test etc.  

    We all need this or will need this.  

     

    From: Faisal Imtiaz 

    Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:31 PM

    To: af 

    Subject: [AFMUG] Fwd: [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

     

    An excellent detailed solution  (from one of the other forums).

     

    Faisal Imtiaz
    Snappy Internet & Telecom
    7266 SW 48 Street
    Miami, FL 33155
    Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

    Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: "Tim Way" <t...@way.vg>
      To: "WISPA General List" <wirel...@wispa.org>
      Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:01:51 PM
      Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

      Art,

      So I know of two solid methods that could solve your problem. Neither are 
super awesome and both would involve NAT.

       

      1. IPv6 only to the client with NAT64 and DNS64 to handle IPv4 only 
connectivity

      2. IPv4 CGN Shared Address Space, RFC 6598 100.64.0.0/10, and IPv6 Global 
Unicast running in Dual Stack

       

      Either one would work. I apologize in advance for the long post that 
follows.

       

      I've only done the configurations on Cisco routers with the radios just 
passing traffic at layer 2. I'd have to check the feature set of your routers 
routing wise but it shouldn't be hard. It also could be built in a lab with 
static routing largely. I think Mikrotik supports NAT64 but again for a lab 
environment any recent Cisco device could be used with IP Services licensing.

       

      Your address plan for your global unicast IPv6 space comes into play. 
This is how I would lab it up including moving routing to the tower with the 
CPE in bridge mode:

       

      Your fictional IPv6 prefix: 9999:8888::/32

       

      Your NAT64 Prefix: 9999:8888:cc00::/96

       

      Customer DHCPv6-PD Allocation Prefix: 9999:8888:aa00::/40

      Your fictional customer #1: The Johnson Family, 9999:8888:aa00:0100::/56

      Your fictional customer #2: The Billings' Family, 9999:8888:aa00:0200::/56

       

      Fictional Tower 1

      ISP Mgmt VLAN of CPE: 11, 9999:8888:bb00:0011::/64

      ISP Customer VLAN of CPE: 12, 9999:8888:bb00:0012::/64

      ISP Router at the tower on VLAN 11: 9999:8888:bb00:0011::1/64

      ISP Router at the tower on VLAN 12: 9999:8888:bb00:0012::1/64

       

      The Johnson Family Setup:

      ISP CPE VLAN 11 IP: 9999:8888:bb00:0011::f/64

      Customer's Netgear WAN Interface: 9999:8888:bb00:0012::f/64

      Customer's Netgear LAN Interface: 9999:8888:aa00:010a::1/64

      Customer's Netgear Guest WiFi: 9999:8888:aa00:010b::1/64

       

      The Billings' Family Setup:

      ISP CPE VLAN 11 IP: 9999:8888:bb00:0011::e/64

      Customer's Netgear WAN Interface: 9999:8888:bb00:0012::e/64

      Customer's Netgear LAN Interface: 9999:8888:aa00:020a::1/64

      Customer's Netgear Guest WiFi: 9999:8888:aa00:020b::1/64

       

      1. You'd bridge VLAN 12 through the CPE to customer's WAN interface as 
the native VLAN and put the IP on VLAN 11.

      2. If you use static routing and manual address assignment to eliminate 
variables in the lab you'll want to add static routes on the tower router for 
the ::/56 prefixes that would be allocated to each customer. Normally these 
routes will be injected into the routing table at the DHCPv6 router and could 
be distributed from there.

      3. The last piece of the puzzle will be adding in the NAT64 and DNS64 
devices. BIND can do DNS64 and you could use a Cisco router to do the NAT64. 
You'd want the "Customer's Netgear" to use the DNS64 server as it's upstream 
DNS server to ensure that it receives AAAA records for sites that only have A 
records. This is the fragile component of the DNS64 and NAT64 deployment 
because it requires the customers computer or router uses your resolver. You 
will want to ensure the router performing NAT64 is advertising the prefix it is 
using for NAT64 into your IGP or that your default routed traffic lands on that 
NAT64 to ensure it is routed correctly.


      This should get you a functional IPv6 only customer network that only 
returns AAAA records for all DNS requests. It's a little late so I apologize 
for any mistakes in the addressing. Also I will think about doing this with 
routing at the CPE as well overnight and add that response. I'd be very 
intrigued to see this in a lab environment with the fictional customers all 
setup to see how NAT64 and DNS64 actually works in reality instead of just 
implementing CGN which I see as the less visible or resilient change for the 
customer. That said I see the pure IPv6 deployment with NAT64 and DNS64 as the 
better long term solution if you could reliably ensure your customers use your 
DHCP server or ensure that your tech support says to reset that right away. It 
also would break a customer using OpenDNS to restrict web-sites from their 
kid's for example.

       

      Thanks,

       

      Tim

       

      On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Art Stephens <asteph...@ptera.com> wrote:



        Tim,

        So we are an IPV4 ISP not able to get any more IPV4 address space. We 
have IPV6 working in office, and on server network.  

        I have working windows and linux IPV6 only configured machines but 
obviously they can only access IPV6 capable web sites and such.

         

        But we will need to start assigning IPV6 WAN address to customer 
routers and UBNT radios in radio router mode when we get a CRM that supports 
IPV6.

        I am a little aware of NAT64 but all my googling for NAT64 applications 
yields NAT64 for networks with Public address on one side and private addresses 
on the other. 

        We try to keep all of our network WAN on public addresses. 

         

        So far I have tried three so called ipv6 ready routers and could get 
none of them to work with static IPV6 addressing. 

         

        Hope that explains what you are looking for.

         

        Thanks for your help.

         

         

        On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Tim Way <t...@way.vg> wrote:



          Dual stack is a different architecture than having two separate 
networks running with one running IPv4 and one running IPv6. To connect the two 
disparate networks you would need to perform address family translation 
(NAT64). In dual-stack it will prefer IPv6 when available, minus happy 
eyeballs, but otherwise has legs or transit via both protocols to access the 
necessary resource if it is either IPv4 or IPv6.

          To start I would ask to clarify what you are trying to do and I'd be 
happy to help in anyway I can. I'm a bit of an IPv6 crazy.

           

          Tim

           

          On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Art Stephens <asteph...@ptera.com> 
wrote:



            Any out there successfully deployed dual stack network can share 
what equipment used for pure ipv6 access to ipv4 networks?

            -- 

            Arthur Stephens 

            Senior Networking Technician 

            Ptera Inc.
            PO Box 135
            24001 E Mission Suite 50
            Liberty Lake, WA 99019 
            509-927-7837 

            ptera.com |

            facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera

            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
            "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety 
information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally 
addressed. 
            Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any 
views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
are not intended to represent those of the company." 


            _______________________________________________
            Wireless mailing list
            wirel...@wispa.org
            http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

           


          _______________________________________________
          Wireless mailing list
          wirel...@wispa.org
          http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




        -- 

        Arthur Stephens 

        Senior Networking Technician 

        Ptera Inc.
        PO Box 135
        24001 E Mission Suite 50
        Liberty Lake, WA 99019 
        509-927-7837 

        ptera.com |

        facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera

        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, 
and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. 
        Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or 
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not 
intended to represent those of the company." 


        _______________________________________________
        Wireless mailing list
        wirel...@wispa.org
        http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

       


      _______________________________________________
      Wireless mailing list
      wirel...@wispa.org
      http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

   

 

Reply via email to