This is a box that does the IPv6 to 4 translations, allowing you to have IPv6 ONLY and still get to the IPv4 world. That’s about it ☺
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 Frequency 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 George Skorup Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 6:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box I have more customers than public IPv4 addresses, so yeah, NAT is already in place. Planning on putting IPv6 on top of it. AKA dual stack. No DNS tricks needed. No out-of-WISP-budget core routing/NAT h/w needed. If you're going to start handing out private IPv4 addresses to customers, do yourself a favor now and use the 100.64.0.0/10 CG-NAT pool. So if a customer BYOD's, you shouldn't have to worry about them going into bridge mode as could possibly happen when they detect a regular RFC1918 WAN address. Some Apple and Netgear stuff is known to do this. But if you're doing something like Calix 844's and don't give the customer a choice (or they don't get a choice in the case of the 844GE or outdoor NIDs), then maybe this doesn't matter to you. On 10/1/2017 5:55 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: I don’t care which solution I use, but I need the following: We can cease to acquire new IPV4 addresses. Able to access IPV4 addresses if there is no V6 DNS for a URL. Customers apps will work flawlessly. So, I do not want to dual stack if it means I have to keep getting more V4 addresses. If I can use private IP space for dual stack, fine. From: George Skorup Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 4:32 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box What does that "box" do that DNS64+NAT64 doesn't? What's the resistance to regular old dual stack, even if you gotta do IPv4 NAT/CGN due to lack of address space? I'd be hesitant with DNS64/NAT64 w/ IPv6 only clients simply because of dumb customer devices. Dual-stack seems to be the safer, less headache prone approach. Especially the NAT64 thing, since I don't want to buy Juniper and the like, because I'm cheap. If MikroTik would support it, then maybe. On 10/1/2017 4:26 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Chuck has asked about an IPv4 - IPv6 box. I don't know anything about it other than what's on their web site, but I came across this. https://retevia.net/ ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
