[c-nsp] Current recommendations for publishing a web site on IPV6 using Cisco products (Router, Firewall, Load Balancer)?

[Jason Giles]

The ACE 30 and the ACE4710 will support IPV6 in future software releases.
There was a conference about this at cisco live.

Not only native IPV6, but also 6 to 4 and it was even demonstrated.

There was no mention about a release date, but you can always ping your
acc rep for that info and a little pressure is always a good thing.




On 8/3/11 5:12 PM, "P C" <pc50000 at gmail.com> wrote:

>The ACE is a current model and nearly new (Ace 4710).  I have no
>chassis based switches to utilize an ACE 30 with, and as far as a
>google search tells me, the 30/4710 both run the same software and
>neither have IPV6 support.
>
>What are your suggestions for the "Extra box"?  Although I really
>think there should be some sort of usable solution what what I have.
>Something that works might be better than nothing at all.
>
>Of course little to no money will go into this.  Is this nearly-new
>kit (nothing here is end of life) can't provide an IPv6 solution, it
>probably just won't be deployed.  The financial driver is not that
>great.
>
>On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:10:51PM -0600, P C wrote:
>>> * Native IPV6 is out.  The 7200 and ASA do it.  So do the web servers.
>>>  However, I was very disappointed to see _zero_ support for IPV6 in
>>> the Cisco ACE.  I would think the web application accelerator would
>>> normally be the ideal place to either handle this thing native, or any
>>> translation needed.
>>
>> The ACE 30 can do it.  With some appropriate amount of yelling at your
>> account manager for selling you such backwards gear in the first place,
>> you might get a reasonable deal for an upgrade...
>>
>>> * NAT64 looks promising, but with no support in IOS or ASA at this
>>> time, I can't do it.
>>
>> You could use an extra box for that...
>>
>>> * NAT-PT is available and can be done on the 7200.  However, it's
>>> largely EoL from what I'm told.
>>> * NAT with ipv6 to ipv4 address mapping might be an acceptable option.
>>
>> Don't.
>>
>> gert
>> --
>> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>>                 
>>//www.muc.de/~gert/
>> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
>>gert at greenie.muc.de
>> fax: +49-89-35655025
>>gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/