The point I am concerned about is a central point of failure.
Thanks, Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161 > On Jul 5, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > Not necessarily. But what I am telling you is that whatever goes out NAT > gateway A has to come back in through NAT gateway A. > > You can build whatever topology you want on either side of that and nothing > says B has to be any where near A. > > Owen > >> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:25 , Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: >> >> So basically what you are telling me is that the NAT gateway needs to be >> centrally aggregated. >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Joshua Moore >> Network Engineer >> ATC Broadband >> 912.632.3161 >> >>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> >>> If you want to keep that, then you’ll need a public backbone network that >>> joins all of your NATs and you’ll need to have your NATs use unique >>> exterior address pools. >>> >>> Load balancing a single session across multiple NATs isn’t really possible. >>> >>> Owne >>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 08:11 , Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> So traffic cones in ISP A might leave ISP B or traffic coming in ISP A may >>>> come in ISP B simultaneously. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Joshua Moore >>>> Network Engineer >>>> ATC Broadband >>>> 912.632.3161 >>>> >>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> -mel beckman >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So the question is: where do you perform the NAT and how can it be >>>>>> redundant? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Joshua Moore >>>>>> Network Engineer >>>>>> ATC Broadband >>>>>> 912.632.3161 >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -mel via cell >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:57 AM, Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are the ISP and I have a /32 :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joshua Moore >>>>>>>> Network Engineer >>>>>>>> ATC Broadband >>>>>>>> 912.632.3161 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Josh Moore wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, tunnels do give you one to one global IPv6 address mapping for >>>>>>>>> every device. From 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you are in a maze of non-twisty paths, all alike :) >>> >
