On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:08 PM Brock Tice <br...@bmwl.co> wrote: > On 10/09/2018 06:24 PM, Philip Loenneker wrote: > > I have asked several vendors we deal with about the newer technologies > > such as 464XLAT, and have had some responses indicating they will > > investigate internally, however we have not made much progress yet. One > > vendor suggested their device supports NAT46 and NAT64 so may support > > 464XLAT, but since it is incidental rather than an official feature, it > > may not support the full CLAT requirements. I have been meaning to do > > some tests but haven’t had a chance yet. It is also a higher price point > > than our current CPEs. > > > > > > > > I have spoken to people who have looked into options such as OpenWRT > > (which supports several of these technolgoies), however the R&D and > > ongoing support is a significant roadblock to overcome. > > > > We looked into this somewhat intently ~6 months ago and had not much > luck from vendors. Barely on their radar if at all. > > We used our own custom OpenWRT build on a few select, tested consumer > routers to do 464XLAT. In the end we went to dual-stack with CGN on > IPv4. I wrote up some documentation on how we did it on my blog, but in > the end I can't recommend the setup we used. > > I would love RouterOS and (various mfgr) CPE support for 464XLAT, then I > would be ready to give it another shot. >
It sounds like I am where you were 6 months ago. We've been looking at NAT64, MAP-T, potentially 464XLAT, and then dual stack with CGN on the v4 side. What did you experience with the dual-stack/CGN approach that keeps you from recommending it? Academically, that setup seems the least fraught with problems among all of the options. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Ammon M: (801) 784-2628 thomasam...@gmail.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------