I am thinking now that our best option would be to go duel-stack lite (RFC6333), after reading what you fellows have to say about 464XLAT. I feel as though I should add that our peer networks (one was started at the end of 2013) are implementing IPv4 only networks; they are pressuring management into thinking that IPv6 is too experimental to deploy, and that IPv4 (only) is the only way to go.
Thank you, - Nich Warren -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:13 PM To: Nicholas Warren Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January) On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Warren <nwar...@barryelectric.com> wrote: > Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience, Hi Nich, Looks like the correct audience to me. > We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the > ground up. [...] The main reason we are even considering 464XLAT as > opposed to dual-stack (the latter is, in my ignorant opinion, the > better option.) is the fear of IPv4 depletion that we think might hit > ARIN between now and the start of next year; causing us to pay a > premium for IPv4 in the gray market. Your customers will require end-to-end IPv4 for the foreseeable future. 464XLAT can provide natted IPv4 using an internal IPv6 infrastructure in special circumstances. Specifically: you must have sufficient control of the customer equipment to compel it to employ 464XLAT to provide IPv4 services to the customer. If your customers lease phones from you and your phone vendors build in 464XLAT support, T-Mobile has demonstrated that this is practical. If your customers bring generic Macs and PCs with the odd Linux user in the mix (their equipment, not yours), you may be asking for extensive support headaches with 464XLAT. Dual stack with carrier NAT would also handle your IPv4 needs. You'll have an additional expense maintaining both protocols within your infrastructure. Nevertheless, this approach alleviates the need to control the customer premises equipment. Regardless of your approach, DS+NAT or 464XLAT, you will require a comparable number of global IPv4 addresses. Neither technology eliminates your need for IPv4 addresses facing the public Internet. Regardless of your approach, you will need to make provisions to support customers who require a global and/or static IPv4 address without NAT. It need not be part of your basic package, but if it's unavailable at any price you can be sure of getting a PR black eye at some point. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
