You will also need to look into nat464xlat to get IPV6 working with mobile devices you will still have issues with just NAT64
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016, 6:20 PM George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote: > He means do v4 to v4 NAT at your core or edge routers. Then stack v6 on > natively. That's what we're doing. Same reason, not enough v4 addresses > left. > > On 8/1/2016 4:48 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: > > We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically > > routable V4 address. > > We will be out of addresses very soon. > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Matt > > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64 > > > > Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP? I thought > > 100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose. Seems to be > > what most cellphones are doing. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations. > >> > >> From: Sterling Jacobson > >> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64 > >> > >> > >> Why use NAT64 again? > >> > >> > >> > >> I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, > >> no NAT > >> required. > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown > >> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64 > >> > >> > >> > >> Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs. > >> Takes a > >> pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a > >> carrier class manner. If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn. > > > >
