networking-forum.com
Community BlogCommunity Wiki * Register  * Search  * Login
View unanswered postsView active topics

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:20 pm 
Offline
New Member
New Member

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:06 pm
Posts: 10
currently we have a requirement to transition into ipv6 using dual stack.

we have on-site users as well as guest/visitors who will have ipv6 hosts who wants to access the internet to a mixture of ipv4/v6 web servers.

we hired a consultant and he advised the best way is using NAT-PT. i read online with the introduction of IETF-RFC4966 that NAT-PT has been depecrated/obsoleted, and that it's better to use NAT64. Is this true?

any advices or suggestions. many thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:12 pm 
Offline
Post Whore
Post Whore
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 5150
Location: Canada eh
Certs: 350-001, CCNP, CXFF, ITILv3F
dot1q wrote:
we hired a consultant and he advised the best way is using NAT-PT.

Fire your consultant.

_________________
blog.brokennetwork.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
New Member
New Member

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 46
Infinite wrote:
dot1q wrote:
we hired a consultant and he advised the best way is using NAT-PT.

Fire your consultant.


I 2nd this. Research stateful nat64


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline
Post Whore
Post Whore
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 5150
Location: Canada eh
Certs: 350-001, CCNP, CXFF, ITILv3F
jb1028 wrote:
Research stateful nat64

Maybe I'm missing the point... But the OP did say dual stack. Why are we talking about NAT at all?

_________________
blog.brokennetwork.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline
New Member
New Member

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 46
Infinite wrote:
jb1028 wrote:
Research stateful nat64

Maybe I'm missing the point... But the OP did say dual stack. Why are we talking about NAT at all?


I read OP is each location having mixture of ipv4 and ipv6. So if ipv6 hosts need to access ipv4 servers on internet, nat64 is required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline
Post Whore
Post Whore
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 5150
Location: Canada eh
Certs: 350-001, CCNP, CXFF, ITILv3F
Run dual stack. Don't run any NAT.

_________________
blog.brokennetwork.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:21 am 
Offline
New Member
New Member

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 46
Yes no nat is needed for dual stack (as long as all clients/apps implement it without bugs) but running dual stack also forces you to support ipv4 network for however long it takes the internet to fully migrate to ipv6. Enabling nat64 does simplify the network addressing and routing. Also not sure of network size but offloading may also be a consideration in future which mostly only supports ipv6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:37 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:59 am
Posts: 362
Location: Birmingham, UK
Certs: CCNA, CCNP
Infinite wrote:
dot1q wrote:
we hired a consultant and he advised the best way is using NAT-PT.

Fire your consultant.

How do those people get a job, I mean it's the same as I would turn around and say "Well yes I am a brain surgeon"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:10 am 
Offline
Post Whore
Post Whore
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 5150
Location: Canada eh
Certs: 350-001, CCNP, CXFF, ITILv3F
jb1028 wrote:
Enabling nat64 does simplify the network addressing and routing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. NAT doesn't simplify anything.

I'm one of those NAT haters, so I doubt very much that you're going to be able to convince me that NAT has any benefits whatsoever. My preferred design choices will always exclude NAT, in any form (though for IPv4 there really isn't any way around standard NAT/PAT).

_________________
blog.brokennetwork.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:03 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:55 pm
Posts: 388
Certs: CCIE CCNP-S CCDA MCSE RHCT Sec+ A+
+1 NAT can suck it...

My personal preference is to build out IPv6 support for dual stack from the core outwards to the clients. If anyone recommends NAT right off the bat you should immediately pour hot coffee on their crotch. While it does have its place it should never, ever, ever be the first option.

If your infrastructure and ISP supports full dual stack that is the best option. Roll it out in a controlled manner and you can seamlessly add IPv6 functionality without disrupting your existing IPv4 network.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:21 pm 
Offline
New Member
New Member

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:01 pm
Posts: 7
Certs: CCNA, Security+
no NAT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
New Member
New Member

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:06 pm
Posts: 10
hi guys, me again. this is all new to me..im new to networking also. i've recently been hired by this small company with a small network.

We are a small organization with a need for native dual stack implementation. We have a simple network consisting of a cisco1800 router, a 5505 ASA, a few switches, 2 windows servers, and roughly 30 users (wired & wireless).

There are no hosts inside our network that require to be reached by IPv6 from the outside.

all we want to do ( i think) : a user inside our LAN wants to ping or access an ipv6 server/host to the outside.

we like to go with dual stack mechanism.

i think we have native ipv6 from our ISP. however, i don't believe we have the ipv6 space.

please tell me what i need to do.

your assistance/guidance is greatly appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:57 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:59 am
Posts: 362
Location: Birmingham, UK
Certs: CCNA, CCNP
Check with the ISP, if thery forward IPv6 then they also should provide the addressing space for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group