What do you mean, 'even Sonar'? We aren't chopped liver!
On 10/27/2016 2:12 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
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
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> –
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>
Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Paul Stewart
*Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:00 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Tim Way" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *"WISPA General List" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*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
<http://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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
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 <tel:509-927-7837>
ptera.com <http://ptera.com/> |
facebook.com/PteraInc
<http://facebook.com/PteraInc> |
twitter.com/Ptera <http://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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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 <tel:509-927-7837>
ptera.com <http://ptera.com/> |
facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> |
twitter.com/Ptera <http://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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
Simon Westlake
Skype: Simon_Sonar
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (702) 447-1247
---------------------------
Sonar Software Inc
The future of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software
