You can do an option 4 HYBRID if you don't have enough IPV4 for each customer like me. About half my customers are on public V4 and the other half are Private 10.0.0.0 numbers and I plan on overlaying that with dual stack IPV6 and everyone will have public V6 assignment while only about half will have public v4 and the other half will have private v4
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> wrote: > We are doing dual stack with IPv6 and IPv4 available on DHCP for each > customer. > > I have over 600 IPv4 assigned and about 80 IPv6 assigned currently, so you > can see how well that's going... > > I would love to just use IPv6, but there doesn't seem to be a good > solution for that currently. > > Which is sad because IPv6 has been out there for over a decade. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:31 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It? > > Dual stack and Ipv4 public addresses…. > > > On Oct 26, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Sam Morris <w...@csilogan.com> wrote: > > > > If you were starting a new network from scratch, how would you do your > IP addressing? > > > > Option 1) ipv6 - Doesn't appear that everything on the Internet supports > pure v6, which would require... > > > > Option 2) ipv6 with NAT64 or dual stack (or whatever would be a patch to > make Option 1 work)... or > > > > Option 3) ipv4 with private IP addresses and a single public v4 address > at the edges (and use CGN for the calea stuff - CGN which evidently comes > with its own set of problems...) > > > > Or is there a better option that I'm not thinking about? > > > > Deciding among these seems like picking which presidential candidate to > vote for - They all stink, and trying to decide which one stinks the > least... > > > > Thanks, > > Sam > >
