[181821] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Jul 5 13:33:21 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <90D7F766-0A66-47F0-885A-848D6159A53B@atcnetworks.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 10:29:21 -0700
To: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>
Cc: "johnl@iecc.com" <johnl@iecc.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If you want to keep that, then you=E2=80=99ll need a public backbone =
network that joins all of your NATs and you=E2=80=99ll need to have your =
NATs use unique exterior address pools.
Load balancing a single session across multiple NATs isn=E2=80=99t =
really possible.
Owne
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 08:11 , Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net> wrote:
>=20
> Performing the NAT on the border routers is not a problem. The problem =
comes into play where the connectivity is not symmetric. Multiple =
entry/exit points to the Internet and some are load balanced. We'd like =
to keep that architecture too as it allows for very good protection in =
an internet link failure scenario and provides BGP best path =
connectivity.
>=20
> So traffic cones in ISP A might leave ISP B or traffic coming in ISP A =
may come in ISP B simultaneously.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Joshua Moore
> Network Engineer
> ATC Broadband
> 912.632.3161
>=20
>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> WISPs have been good at solving this, as they are often deploying =
greenfield networks. They use private IPv4 internally and NAT IPv4 at =
multiple exit points. IPv6 is seamlessly redundant, since customers all =
receive global /64s; BGP handles failover. If you home multiple upstream =
providers on a single NAT gateway hardware stack, redundancy is also =
seamless, since your NAT tables are synced across redundant stack =
members. If you have separate stacks, or even sites, IPv4 can fail over =
to an alternate NAT Border gateway but will lose session contexts, =
unless you go to the trouble of syncing the gateways. Most WISPs don't. =20=
>>=20
>> -mel beckman
>>=20
>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> So the question is: where do you perform the NAT and how can it be =
redundant?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>>=20
>>> Joshua Moore
>>> Network Engineer
>>> ATC Broadband
>>> 912.632.3161
>>>=20
>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Josh,
>>>>=20
>>>> Your job is simple, then. Deliver dual-stack to your customers and =
if they want IPv6 they need only get an IPv6-enabled firewall. Unless =
you're also an IT consultant to your customers, your job is done. If you =
already supply the CPE firewall, then you need only turn on IPv6 for =
customers who request it. With the right kind of CPE, you can run MPLS =
or EoIP and deliver public IPv4 /32s to customers willing to pay for =
them. Otherwise it's private IPv4 and NAT as usual for IPv4 traffic.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> -mel via cell
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:57 AM, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net> =
wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> We are the ISP and I have a /32 :)
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I'm simply looking at the best strategy for migrating my =
subscribers off v4 from the perspective of solving the address =
utilization crisis while still providing compatibility for those one-off =
sites and services that are still on v4.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Joshua Moore
>>>>> Network Engineer
>>>>> ATC Broadband
>>>>> 912.632.3161
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Josh Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Tunnels behind a CPE and 4to6 NAT seem like bandaid fixes as =
they do not give the benefit of true end to end IPv6 connectivity in the =
sense of every device has a one to one global address mapping.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> No, tunnels do give you one to one global IPv6 address mapping =
for every device. =46rom a testing perspective, a tunnelbroker works =
just as if you had a second IPv6-only ISP. If you're fortunate enough to =
have a dual-stack ISP already, you can forgo tunneling altogether and =
just use an IPv6-capable border firewall.=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> William Waites wrote:
>>>>>>> I was helping my
>>>>>>> friend who likes Apple things connect to the local community
>>>>>>> network. He wanted to use an Airport as his home gateway rather =
than
>>>>>>> the router that we normally use. Turns out these things can =
*only* do
>>>>>>> IPv6 with tunnels and cannot do IPv6 on PPPoE. Go figure. So =
there is
>>>>>>> not exactly a clear path to native IPv6 for your lab this way.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Nobody is recommending the Apple router as a border firewall. =
It's terrible for that. But it's a ready-to-go tunnelbroker gateway. If =
your ISP can't deliver IPv6, tunneling is the clear path to building a =
lab. If you have a dual-stack ISP already, the clear path is to use an =
IPv6-capable border firewall.=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So you are in a maze of non-twisty paths, all alike :)
