Hello Benedikt, I’m not a friend of NAT as well, but demonize NAT for any actions is a kind of overdo, isn’t it. We are living with NAT a long time now for better or for worse.
A customer of mine (enterprise customer with hundreds of sites and thousands of employees) has setup his IPv6 project more than 4 years ago and plans to be finished 2020. Their project team produced hundreds of pages in planning strategy, timeline and migration. In one of their sub projects they saw NAT as a interim solution for their Webservice as best method. We implemented a redundant NAT64 solution based on Cisco Adress Family Translation. Now IPv6-only or Dual-stacked Users can hit the customers web service which is still IPv4 only. Of course not a low-cost solution, but for „political" and/or technical reasons a solid way. Best regards Thorsten > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von > [email protected] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. April 2016 12:00 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 4 > > Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: > Contents of ipv6-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 (Benedikt Stockebrand) > 2. Re: ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 (Silvia Hagen) > 3. Re: ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 (Sander Steffann) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:13:35 +0000 > From: Benedikt Stockebrand <[email protected]> > To: christian bretterhofer <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hi Christian and list, > > christian bretterhofer <[email protected]> writes: > >> I think the basic work for ISPs in concern to IPv6 is covered. > > well, depends on the ISP in question. To me it looks a lot like many are > still struggling to get the necessary knowledge and experience to their tech > and support crowd---not necessarily with the people actively involved in the > RIPE community, but at least with the big ones. > > A customer recently asked one of the large players here in Germany if they > were interested in a contract that would have allowed my customer to > outsource some IPv6-related tasks---or rather, to outsource some tasks that > were also expected to be supported via IPv6. They were turned down with the > explanation "we don't have the necessary manpower to operate this". > >> But i miss the topics to be addressed if you want to migrate from a >> IPv4 Microsoft Active domain using company to an system where most >> server in an enterprise could by just IPv6 only and use technologies >> like NAT46 ( SIIT-DC ) or similar to still make IPv4 only windows >> clients happy. > > Now I've taken a bit of a look at these things, but then I'm not exactly a > Microsoft guy. From all I've seen, going for NAT64 and such is generally a > bad idea. Instead, ensure that IPv6 is provided wherever it is needed and > then make your servers dual stacked. > > Yes, that frequently involves upgrades on various servers nobody really wants > to touch, but the very reasons why nobody wants to touch them are the reasons > why you actually clean that stuff up. > >> Switching an enterprise with location around the global from a "we >> donot route any IPv6 traffic across our WAN Links" "most servers have >> IPv6 disabled" to >> We start IPv6 routing partially and enable partial IPv6 support on >> servers in a Microsoft ADS environment seems not covered in most IPv6 >> covering websites and presentations. > > That may be because your approach is unnecessarily painful. You want to get > IPv6 up and running in the network infrastructure first, then make your > servers dual-stacked and then deal with the clients. > > At least that's the "strategic" outline of an approach. Beyond that it's > really a lot of detail work to do on an individual basis. > >> Maintaining dual stack for the datacenters is just painfull and there >> should be a "single" device in the form of NAT46/SIIT/SIIT-DC in front >> of each server area. I am not sure that Active directory is ready for >> that. > > Nonononono, don't do that. Whenever something goes wrong with that "single > device", you'll have a serious disruption of service, not everything works > through it, and you'll never ever get a chance to get rid of it in the long > run because there'll always be that one last server that depends on it, or > might depend on it but nobody knows for sure. > > Yes, that means that you need to have all your servers dual stacked, and yes, > that's some serious extra workload in a data center context, but anything > else is quite likely way worse. > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt > > -- > Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting > Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ > > Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects > > BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:35:28 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen <[email protected]> > To: Benedikt Stockebrand <[email protected]>, christian > bretterhofer <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 > Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E70129FFFA@hex02> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > That would be a great panel discussion with some diverse speakers on the > panel :-) > > Silvia > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Benedikt > Stockebrand > Gesendet: Montag, 25. April 2016 20:14 > An: christian bretterhofer > Cc: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 > > Hi Christian and list, > > christian bretterhofer <[email protected]> writes: > >> I think the basic work for ISPs in concern to IPv6 is covered. > > well, depends on the ISP in question. To me it looks a lot like many are > still struggling to get the necessary knowledge and experience to their tech > and support crowd---not necessarily with the people actively involved in the > RIPE community, but at least with the big ones. > > A customer recently asked one of the large players here in Germany if they > were interested in a contract that would have allowed my customer to > outsource some IPv6-related tasks---or rather, to outsource some tasks that > were also expected to be supported via IPv6. They were turned down with the > explanation "we don't have the necessary manpower to operate this". > >> But i miss the topics to be addressed if you want to migrate from a >> IPv4 Microsoft Active domain using company to an system where most >> server in an enterprise could by just IPv6 only and use technologies >> like NAT46 ( SIIT-DC ) or similar to still make IPv4 only windows >> clients happy. > > Now I've taken a bit of a look at these things, but then I'm not exactly a > Microsoft guy. From all I've seen, going for NAT64 and such is generally a > bad idea. Instead, ensure that IPv6 is provided wherever it is needed and > then make your servers dual stacked. > > Yes, that frequently involves upgrades on various servers nobody really wants > to touch, but the very reasons why nobody wants to touch them are the reasons > why you actually clean that stuff up. > >> Switching an enterprise with location around the global from a "we >> donot route any IPv6 traffic across our WAN Links" "most servers have >> IPv6 disabled" to >> We start IPv6 routing partially and enable partial IPv6 support on >> servers in a Microsoft ADS environment seems not covered in most IPv6 >> covering websites and presentations. > > That may be because your approach is unnecessarily painful. You want to get > IPv6 up and running in the network infrastructure first, then make your > servers dual-stacked and then deal with the clients. > > At least that's the "strategic" outline of an approach. Beyond that it's > really a lot of detail work to do on an individual basis. > >> Maintaining dual stack for the datacenters is just painfull and there >> should be a "single" device in the form of NAT46/SIIT/SIIT-DC in front >> of each server area. I am not sure that Active directory is ready for >> that. > > Nonononono, don't do that. Whenever something goes wrong with that "single > device", you'll have a serious disruption of service, not everything works > through it, and you'll never ever get a chance to get rid of it in the long > run because there'll always be that one last server that depends on it, or > might depend on it but nobody knows for sure. > > Yes, that means that you need to have all your servers dual stacked, and yes, > that's some serious extra workload in a data center context, but anything > else is quite likely way worse. > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt > > -- > Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting > Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ > > Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects > > BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:45:27 +0100 > From: Sander Steffann <[email protected]> > To: Silvia Hagen <[email protected]> > Cc: christian bretterhofer <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi, > >> Op 25 apr. 2016, om 19:35 heeft Silvia Hagen <[email protected]> het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> That would be a great panel discussion with some diverse speakers on >> the panel :-) > > I have been doing some enterprise stuff as well recently. If there is going > to be such a panel I would love to participate! :) > > Cheers, > Sander > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 496 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail > URL: > <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160425/c4e8d8d9/attachment-0001.sig> > > End of ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 4 > **************************************
