On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:09:49 AM Chris Bagnall wrote: > Well, many of our deployments expect working v6, so we've > not been able to do much other than use 2.1 > snapshot/beta/RCs. I must admit there's an element of > principle in there on my part: I can't in all good > conscience design a network for anyone these days > without full v6 support.
We are staunch on this for the transport network, as it is easy and support in Cisco and Juniper has been good for a long time now. In the corporate space, I want to make sure we have happy eyeballs, so we'll delay this as much as possible so that everyone has a reasonable OS (computer and mobile), and that 2.1 is finally official. pfSense is the only missing piece - all routing and switching infrastructure for the corporate network has already been deployed to support IPv6. > At the risk of sounding greedy, I would like to see some > sort of NAT64/DNS64 technology, so that we could > actually have a go at running a v6-only network, then > use transitional technologies to access the 'legacy > internet' :-) Yes, I saw NAT64/DNS64 was missing from the feature list, but we shall be running that on Cisco ASR1006's anyway, as it's more applicable to customers than just our corporate network. > Out of curiosity, has anyone had a play with NAT64/DNS64 > in anger, and if so, what did you use (even if not on > pfSense)? There seem to be a few open source offerings > out there - Tayga is one that I've seen - but I've no > experience of it on a production network. I had good success running it on the Cisco ASR1006's back in 2011. It worked out of the box, except domain literals in links break (obviously) and software that doesn't support IPv6 (Skype, at the time) won't work either. Worked like a charm, and will be implementing it again soon on the same platform at $new_job. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
