Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

> > Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270> > > E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:01 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy I

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

Magic Box Magic Box (Dennis are you listening) Magic Box From: Chris Wright Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:50 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants I think there are more of us in the same boat as you than you know. IPv6 has been a standard since 1998, any

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants I admit I'm more ignorant when it comes to IPv6 than I should be, so there may be an obvious answer to this... but if you're not giving out any IPv4, how are the customer's devices that don't support IPv6 going to work

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

t; > > That is what is stopping us. > > > > And ISP, upstream providers not handling IPv6 transport or BGP IPv6… > > > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On > Behalf Of Chuck McCown > Sent: Wednesday, May 10,

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

. I see that adoption rate as actually better than the router and upstream IPv6 adoption. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:55 AM To: af <af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants I admit I'm more ignoran

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

ehalf Of *Chuck McCown > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:19 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants > > > > I want to just give the customer a V6 and the edge appliance will nat the > v4 only destinations. > > > > *From:* P

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Why not dual stack with CGNAT IPv4 and public IPv6? Hand your lower speed tier accounts a NATed IPv4 in 100.64.0.0/10 and a public /64 in IPv6. What I am thinking of doing when the IPv4 squeeze hits us but I still have not figured out how to track abuse etc

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

boy IPv6 pants I want to just give the customer a V6 and the edge appliance will nat the v4 only destinations. From: Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:45 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants We dual stack and will continue as long

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

t; <dmilho...@wletc.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 8:10:53 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Why Nat at all with IPV6? On 05/11/2017 07:51 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: You can do Carrier grade NAT with MT. Dennis Burgess – Network S

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

echs.net> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:01 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Many if not most of us are in the same box. I need a router that goes on the edge and does somet

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

ay, May 10, 2017 6:01 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Many if not most of us are in the same box. I need a router that goes on the edge and does something similar to NAT64/ds lite etc. Someone is going to make good money by developing “IPV6 in a box”

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:01 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Many if not most of us are in the same box. I need a router that goes on the edge and does something similar to NAT64/ds lit

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

; > > That is what is stopping us. > > > > And ISP, upstream providers not handling IPv6 transport or BGP IPv6… > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:19 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

… From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:19 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants I want to just give the customer a V6 and the edge appliance will nat the v4 only destinations. From: Paul Stewart Sent

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

I want to just give the customer a V6 and the edge appliance will nat the v4 only destinations. From: Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:45 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants We dual stack and will continue as long as possible … really hoping

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

We dual stack and will continue as long as possible … really hoping to avoid transition stuff but who knows for sure if that’s just a pipe dream or not ;) > On May 10, 2017, at 6:50 PM, Chris Wright wrote: > > I’m weighing the pros/cons of purchasing another block of

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

Some of the CGNAT implementations actually simply subdivide the ports on each address so you've assigned a fixed range of ports to each sub. So for instance, if you decided that each customer could have at most 1024 sessions open, you would assign ports 0-1023 to customer 1, 1024-2047 to

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

Why not dual stack with CGNAT IPv4 and public IPv6? Hand your lower speed tier accounts a NATed IPv4 in 100.64.0.0/10 and a public /64 in IPv6. What I am thinking of doing when the IPv4 squeeze hits us but I still have not figured out how to track abuse etc in the NATed space. Anyone made that

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

Jacobson Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:54 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Nothing at the moment, still dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 Also interested if someone has figured this out with a half decent solution as I need to purchase another /22 this year

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 3:55 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants Nothing at the moment, still dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 Also interested if someone has figured this out with a half decent solution as I need to purchase another

Re: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

Subject: [AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants I'm weighing the pros/cons of purchasing another block of IPv4 at auction or finding a NAT64 solution that will enable me to start handing IPv6 addresses to customers and know they'll be able to get to IPv4 internet without issue. Mikrotik doesn't

[AFMUG] Putting on big boy IPv6 pants

I'm weighing the pros/cons of purchasing another block of IPv4 at auction or finding a NAT64 solution that will enable me to start handing IPv6 addresses to customers and know they'll be able to get to IPv4 internet without issue. Mikrotik doesn't seem too concerned with implementing NAT64, so I'd