Because CGNAT for IPv4 is a step in the opposite direction. Though it may very well come to that.
Chris Wright Network Administrator -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Why not dual stack with CGNAT IPv4 and public IPv6? Hand your lower speed tier accounts a NATed IPv4 in 100.64.0.0/10 and a public /64 in IPv6. What I am thinking of doing when the IPv4 squeeze hits us but I still have not figured out how to track abuse etc in the NATed space. Anyone made that work with Mikrotik? We are doing dual stack public IPv4 and IPv6 with PPPoE right now but it seems that mostly only pppoe users with Mikrotik routers pick up the IPv6. Mikrotik seems to be lagging a bit on IPv6 support as well. No IPv6 accounting yet, no easy way to assign IPv6 subnet with radius etc. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m weighing the pros/cons of purchasing another block of IPv4 at > auction or finding a NAT64 solution that will enable me to start > handing IPv6 addresses to customers and know they’ll be able to get to IPv4 > internet without issue. > Mikrotik doesn’t seem too concerned with implementing NAT64, so I’d be > looking at adding complexity to my network if I go that direction. On > the other hand, I don’t like spending thousands of dollars on > antiquated address space if I can help it. I’d rather do my part in > moving IP standards forward instead of staying stuck in the past. > > > > What’s working for you all? > > > > Chris Wright > > Network Administrator > >
