Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Create a $99.95/month "Gamer" package and tell the gamers that complain
that to fix their NAT they need to upgrade to the gamer package and then
put them on a public IP once they go to that package.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Jesse DuPont <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> wrote:

> That's where we're at, option 4. By default, we NAT everyone for v4. Those
> who call and complain about issues with the NAT (gaming, VoIP maybe, VPN
> sometimes), we move them to a dynamic routable v4 address. We're all PPPoE
> so this change is simple: change it in RADIUS, kick their session, back on
> with routable v4 address. All our SM's are bridged so the customer's router
> does the PPPoE session and gets the IPs directly. We do not charge
> customers who need a public, only those who need a STATIC.
> We also are 100% dual-stack throughout, with v6 prefix-delegation enabled
> at every site. Any router we sell has v6 enabled and is tested at the
> house. Any customer-owned existing router, if it supports v6 PD will also
> get a prefix if v6 is enabled on their router.
>
> *Jesse DuPont*
>
> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC
>
> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
>
> Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
> On 10/27/16 7:56 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Jesse DuPont]

  
  
That's where we're at, option 4. By default, we NAT everyone for v4.
Those who call and complain about issues with the NAT (gaming, VoIP
maybe, VPN sometimes), we move them to a dynamic routable v4
address. We're all PPPoE so this change is simple: change it in
RADIUS, kick their session, back on with routable v4 address. All
our SM's are bridged so the customer's router does the PPPoE session
and gets the IPs directly. We do not charge customers who need a
public, only those who need a STATIC.
We also are 100% dual-stack throughout, with v6 prefix-delegation
enabled at every site. Any router we sell has v6 enabled and is
tested at the house. Any customer-owned existing router, if it
supports v6 PD will also get a prefix if v6 is enabled on their
router.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 10/27/16 7:56 PM, Kurt Fankhauser
  wrote:


  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

  

  


  


  

Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Kurt Fankhauser]

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
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Sterling Jacobson]

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

Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Paul Stewart]

Dual stack and Ipv4 public addresses…. 

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Sam Morris  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

Re: [AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Mathew Howard]

Assuming you can't get enough ipv4 addresses to do option 4 for whatever
reason (which is the best option, really), I would probably say the best
way to go is CGN plus IPv6 dual stack.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> None of the above, unless a ridiculous number of ipv4 addresses are
> required, I'd find the money to acquire a sufficient number of ipv4 /24s
> (preferably in pieces like /22) through the official ARIN transfer process
> and consider the per-customer IP cost paid as an NRC for the transfer as
> part of the network build cost.
>
> Option 4) one ipv4 per customer and ipv6 dual stack
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Sam Morris  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
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] New Network from Ground Up - How Would You Address It?

[Sam Morris]

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