[c-nsp] need good recommendation for isp gateway nat bgp pbr

[Brian Roche]

Ha, well... since you've pretty much convinced me my network is poorly
designed by using NAT at all, I realize that even though I don't own
enough IPv4 for my existing NAT customers, I suppose I could obtain
addresses from my upstream providers and use them for my residential
customers.  I've avoided using addresses I don't own for statically
addressed customers (it makes it incredibly hard to change upstream
providers if you are married to their IP allocation) but most of the
residential customers are DHCP so re-addressing them would be
comparatively easy.



On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net> wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2011 09:46:45 PM Brian Roche wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the thorough analysis.  I share your concerns
>> about NAT, have managed to limit its use to residential
>> cable modems, and plan to completely remove it as part
>> of our *eventual* IPv6 migrations/FTTH strategy.
>
> <digress>
>
> Well, as strange as it may sound, IPv6 won't take away your
> NAT woes in the short-to-medium term.
>
> Because your IPv6-only customers (those that sign-up to your
> network after you've exhausted your last IPv4 address) will
> still need to communicate with IPv4-only resources on the
> Internet (those networks that still think IPv6 is a waste of
> time), you're probably going to need to do some kind of NAT
> for this.
>
> All NAT is evil, but I think NAT64 is less evil because
> you're not using private IPv4 or private IPv6 addresses (you
> can, but shouldn't). NAT64 will also make your final
> migration to native/non-NAT'ed IPv6 easier than if you did
> NAT44 or NAT444.
>
> </digress>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>