yes - I found this solution here -->
https://blog.brocktice.com/2017/12/27/deploying-464xlat-for-ipv6-only-clients-on-a-small-wisp-network-with-mikrotik-routers/


thank you very much for the hints



On 8/11/2018 22:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> If you're setting up the ISP, you probably choose the CPE.
>
>
>
> If you don't find a commercial solution that supports the CLAT (because you 
> may be too small for asking the feature), you need to consider buying cheap 
> CPEs of your choice, and installing OpenWRT with the CLAT, which will solve 
> all your problems.
>
>
>
> This way you don't need to look into "exotic" solutions, because a single 
> solution works for all.
>
>
>
> Only in the case a customer wants to have a static IPv4, and pay for it, then 
> you assign "real" dual-stack to that customer, instead of 464XLAT.
>
>
>
> We have already done this for several ISPs.
>
>
>
> This is in line with the other document I'm working on, and going to 
> last-call in v6ops next week, hopefully:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
>
> De: <jool-list-boun...@nic.mx> en nombre de Petre Tudor <petre.tu...@cte.ro>
>
> Fecha: sábado, 11 de agosto de 2018, 15:25
>
> Para: <jool-list@nic.mx>
>
> Asunto: Re: [Jool-list] jool setup
>
>
>
>     Hello Aberto, Jordi
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     many thanks for the quick and detailed answers
>
>     
>
>     @Alberto - actually the resources usage was the next question, but you
>
>     answered already; it looks like I found the software which does what I
>
>     need, the rest is in the details of the implementation.
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     @Jordi - the whole idea is thought for the residential users of an
>
>     emerging isp, as an attempt to minimise the ipv4 usage and also to
>
>     easily implement ipv6; the idea is in the early stages, but I imagine
>
>     something like a linux gateway running jool in front of an ipv6-only
>
>     network (ip's are assigned via pppoe), through which all uses exit;
>
>     those visiting ipv6 sites, go directly and those requesting ipv4-only
>
>     sites will be nat64-ed.
>
>     
>
>     I am fully aware that a solution which covers 100% of the possible cases
>
>     is utopic, but I am happy if I can cover the normal cases; for the
>
>     "exotic" ones I could always assign an ipv4 via the dual stack pppoe and
>
>     solve the problem (these being the exceptions and not the rule) 
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     many thanks again for answering so quick on a saturday evening,
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     cheers,
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     petre
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     On 8/11/2018 21:27, Alberto Leiva wrote:
>
>     > These don't really address your first question directly, but might
>
>     > serve as a reference point. They are everything I managed to collect
>
>     > that is both public and refers to performance:
>
>     >
>
>     > (https://mail-lists.nic.mx/pipermail/jool-list/2018-July/000199.html)
>
>     > First off, you're definitively not hitting the performance limit of 
> Jool - it
>
>     > easily scales to multiple Gb/s of throughput. There must be something 
> else
>
>     > that is causing your issues.
>
>     >
>
>     > (https://mail-lists.nic.mx/pipermail/jool-list/2017-October/000158.html)
>
>     > Jool, even 3.5.4 Jool, withstands T-Rex's torture traffic without
>
>     > flinching. There are no significant performance issues to worry about. 
> CPU
>
>     > usage is at 1% at worst and there are no packet drops.
>
>     > ...
>
>     > I can now say fairly confidently that Jool is pretty darn
>
>     > fast, even without the latest performance tweaks applied, as evidenced 
> from
>
>     > the fact that, now that whatever was hobbling before is gone, it is 
> pretty
>
>     > clear that Jool can keep up to at least this configuration of T-Rex with
>
>     > flying colors.
>
>     >
>
>     > 
> (https://mail-lists.nic.mx/pipermail/jool-list/2016-September/000091.html)
>
>     >> What is the CPU load on the x86 SIIT-BRs from Jool?
>
>     > Our are practically idle. They are translating about 100Mb/s of mostly
>
>     > web traffic. The hardware is quite old even, Sun X4170s with 2x
>
>     > quad-core Intel L5520 CPUs. Less than a quarter of a single CPU core is
>
>     > used for the entire system (so not only Jool), the remaining 7.75 CPU
>
>     > cores are idle.
>
>     >
>
>     > --------
>
>     >
>
>     > BTW: We're currently working on a performance bug that affects packets
>
>     > that never traverse physical interfaces:
>
>     > https://github.com/NICMx/Jool/issues/267
>
>     > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:50 PM Alberto Leiva <ydah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     >>> is the setup above feasible for networks with several thousand users
>
>     >>> (between 5-10k)
>
>     >> Performance-wise, as a developer, I don't really have a means to test
>
>     >> that level of traffic. Maybe somebody else in the list has that
>
>     >> information.
>
>     >>
>
>     >> Functionality-wise though, Jool won't stop you. Just make sure that
>
>     >> you have enough IPv4 transport addresses to mask all of that.
>
>     >>
>
>     >> Also, I'd suggest that you keep a decent understanding of this:
>
>     >> https://jool.mx/en/usr-flags-pool4.html#--max-iterations
>
>     >>
>
>     >>> is there a latency induced for throughputs of more than a gb ?
>
>     >> Not that I know of. (Why would that happen?)
>
>     >>
>
>     >>> exists the possibility of defining a pool of ipv4 addresses when
>
>     >>> nat64-ing and not doing 1-to-1 specific rules ?
>
>     >> Yes: https://jool.mx/en/pool4.html
>
>     >> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM Petre Tudor <petre.tu...@cte.ro> wrote:
>
>     >>> hello
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> i am trying to minimize the usage of the ipv4 addresses by assigning 
> to
>
>     >>> the users only ipv6 and nat64-ing them to the internet. (the final 
> goal
>
>     >>> would be to assign routable ipv4 only to those users who really need
>
>     >>> them and pay them as an extra service; the normal users who don't have
>
>     >>> specific requirements will only receive an ipv6 address and get nat64
>
>     >>> for the only-ipv4 destinations.
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> before i start i have a few questions regarding the jool features
>
>     >>> (please excuse if they are too trivial, I am new in this knowledge 
> area):
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> - is the setup above feasible for networks with several thousand users
>
>     >>> (between 5-10k)
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> - is there a latency induced for throughputs of more than a gb ?
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> - exists the possibility of defining a pool of ipv4 addresses when
>
>     >>> nat64-ing and not doing 1-to-1 specific rules ?
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> thanks,
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> petre
>
>     >>>
>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>
>     >>> Jool-list mailing list
>
>     >>> Jool-list@nic.mx
>
>     >>> https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list
>
>     
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Jool-list mailing list
>
>     Jool-list@nic.mx
>
>     https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list
>
>     
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Jool-list mailing list
Jool-list@nic.mx
https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list

Reply via email to