routers and filling up your MAC
> tables).
>
> Owen
>
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:40 , Josh Moore wrote:
>>
>> The question becomes manageability. Unique VLAN per customer is not always
>> scalable. For example, only ~4000 VLAN tags. What happens when you have mo
that
are different from IPv4?
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Josh Moore
Cc: Owen DeLong; nanog@nanog.org
Su
DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Josh Moore
Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments
Short answer to that is “DHCPv6-PD”
Longer answer:
Customer’s router should get an address on the external
| 912.218.3720 - M
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:08 PM
To: Josh Moore
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 19:04:06 -, Josh Moore said:
> I'm read
I'm reading that the recommended method for assigning IPv6 addresses to
end-users is to do this via a dedicated VLAN and /64. Some broadband access
methods utilize a shared VLAN model with additional security mechanisms in
place such as DHCP snooping, source-verify etc. Why wouldn't it be ideal
r Dye [mailto:chris@paragon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 3:57 PM
To: Dan White; Josh Moore
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Debian RWHOIS
I'd recommend you use the official RWHOIS project from ARIN.
http://projects.arin.net/rwhois/
It will run after compilation on Debian.
Christopher D
Hello guys,
What do you use for ARIN resource assignments? I am looking to setup a
Debian-based RWHOIS server but don't see much information on it.
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M
You can still carry the v6 NLRIs in MP-BGP though right?
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M
From: Mel Beckman [mailto:m...@beckman.org]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:49 AM
To: andrew
Cc: Lee Howard; Josh Moore; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Dual
I think the best you can
> hope for is that the importance of IPv4 NAT will diminish over time. One day
> it will be just a memory, like SNA :)
>
> -mel beckman
>
>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Josh Moore wrote:
>>
>> I was hoping to find a solution that maybe u
ote:
>
> A NAT box is a central point of failure for which the only cure is to not do
> NAT.
>
> You can get clustered NAT boxes (Juniper, for example), but that just makes a
> bigger central point of failure.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:49 , Josh Moore wr
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 wrote:
>>
>> So basically what you are telling me i
work 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 wrote:
>>
>> P
texts, 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 wrote:
>>
>> So the question is: where do you perform the NAT and how can it be redundant?
>>
>
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 wrote:
>>
>> We are the ISP and I have
Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161
On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Mel Beckman 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
Creating this in a test lab is mandatory for a successful migration. 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.
Seems that my initial thought
But what is the "best compromise" strategy? Dual stack + CGN? Some kind of
intelligent 6to4 NAT?
Thanks,
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161
On Jul 4, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Ca By
mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015, Josh M
Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE.
Consider the following:
An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with the
purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless of the
depletion of the IPv4 space. Current
18 matches
Mail list logo
