Create a $99.95/month "Gamer" package and tell the gamers that complain that to fix their NAT they need to upgrade to the gamer package and then put them on a public IP once they go to that package.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Jesse DuPont <[email protected] > wrote: > That's where we're at, option 4. By default, we NAT everyone for v4. Those > who call and complain about issues with the NAT (gaming, VoIP maybe, VPN > sometimes), we move them to a dynamic routable v4 address. We're all PPPoE > so this change is simple: change it in RADIUS, kick their session, back on > with routable v4 address. All our SM's are bridged so the customer's router > does the PPPoE session and gets the IPs directly. We do not charge > customers who need a public, only those who need a STATIC. > We also are 100% dual-stack throughout, with v6 prefix-delegation enabled > at every site. Any router we sell has v6 enabled and is tested at the > house. Any customer-owned existing router, if it supports v6 PD will also > get a prefix if v6 is enabled on their router. > > *Jesse DuPont* > > Network Architect > email: [email protected] > Celerity Networks LLC > > Celerity Broadband LLC > Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc > > Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband > On 10/27/16 7:56 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > > You can do an option 4 HYBRID if you don't have enough IPV4 for each > customer like me. About half my customers are on public V4 and the other > half are Private 10.0.0.0 numbers and I plan on overlaying that with dual > stack IPV6 and everyone will have public V6 assignment while only about > half will have public v4 and the other half will have private v4 > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We are doing dual stack with IPv6 and IPv4 available on DHCP for each >> customer. >> >> I have over 600 IPv4 assigned and about 80 IPv6 assigned currently, so >> you can see how well that's going... >> >> I would love to just use IPv6, but there doesn't seem to be a good >> solution for that currently. >> >> Which is sad because IPv6 has been out there for over a decade. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:31 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address >> It? >> >> Dual stack and Ipv4 public addresses…. >> >> > On Oct 26, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Sam Morris <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > If you were starting a new network from scratch, how would you do your >> IP addressing? >> > >> > Option 1) ipv6 - Doesn't appear that everything on the Internet >> supports pure v6, which would require... >> > >> > Option 2) ipv6 with NAT64 or dual stack (or whatever would be a patch >> to make Option 1 work)... or >> > >> > Option 3) ipv4 with private IP addresses and a single public v4 address >> at the edges (and use CGN for the calea stuff - CGN which evidently comes >> with its own set of problems...) >> > >> > Or is there a better option that I'm not thinking about? >> > >> > Deciding among these seems like picking which presidential candidate to >> vote for - They all stink, and trying to decide which one stinks the >> least... >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Sam >> >> > >
