NAT-PT IPv6 issue

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by bensonlei@yahoo.com.hk, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Guest

    Hi,

    We found some ipv6 prefix can not be NAT-PT, can anybody tell me what
    range IPv6 for NAT-PT, we are using C2800 with IOS v12.4 ?

    We are testing the NAT-PT for IPv6 24xx:0:6ec::/64.

    THANKs
    , Feb 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. It was my understanding that there is no NAT for IPv6.

    NAT was created under IPv4 as a means of delaying the eventual
    exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.

    If you raise 2 to the 128th power (as IPv6 addresses have 128
    bits instead of 32 like IPv4 does), you get approximately 3.4 times 10
    to the 38th power Ipv6 addresses for use on the Internet.

    The current world population is 6,897,078,213 people according
    to a Web site I just checked.

    If you take 3.4 times ten to the 38th and divide it by
    6,897,078,213 you yield approximately 4.933 times ten to the 31st.

    That means each person in the world can have 4.933 times ten
    to the 31st IPv6 addresses without anyone having a duplicate address
    that is shared by someone else.

    Do you think that we will exhaust ourselves of IPv6 addresses
    even by the end of your great-grandchildren's lifetimes?

    So we don't need NAT with IPv6 addressing. There are enough
    IP addresses to go around.

    Now as sure as I'm sitting here, something has changed since I
    read up on IPv6. If indeed there is NAT for IPv6, I'll be interested
    in knowing why it is needed. I cant' see any reason for it orfor any
    other IP address conservation methods under IPv6.

    Regards,




    Fred

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:01:57 -0800 (PST), ""
    <> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >We found some ipv6 prefix can not be NAT-PT, can anybody tell me what
    >range IPv6 for NAT-PT, we are using C2800 with IOS v12.4 ?
    >
    >We are testing the NAT-PT for IPv6 24xx:0:6ec::/64.
    >
    >THANKs
    Fred Atkinson, Feb 15, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob Guest

    Fred Atkinson <> wrote:
    > It was my understanding that there is no NAT for IPv6.
    >
    > NAT was created under IPv4 as a means of delaying the eventual
    > exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.


    NAT-PT is Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation and it
    is a mechanism to translate between IPv6 and IPv4. So your IPv6
    systems can communicate with IPv4 hosts on the internet, and the
    router is doing the translation between the protocols (and of course
    the addresses as well).
    Rob, Feb 15, 2011
    #3
  4. On 15 Feb 2011 15:31:20 GMT, Rob <> wrote:

    >Fred Atkinson <> wrote:
    >> It was my understanding that there is no NAT for IPv6.
    >>
    >> NAT was created under IPv4 as a means of delaying the eventual
    >> exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.

    >
    >NAT-PT is Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation and it
    >is a mechanism to translate between IPv6 and IPv4. So your IPv6
    >systems can communicate with IPv4 hosts on the internet, and the
    >router is doing the translation between the protocols (and of course
    >the addresses as well).


    Thanks for the information.

    Regards,




    Fred
    Fred Atkinson, Feb 16, 2011
    #4
  5. Guest

    On 2月16æ—¥, 上åˆ8時38分, Fred Atkinson <> wrote:
    > On 15 Feb 2011 15:31:20 GMT, Rob <> wrote:
    >
    > >Fred Atkinson <> wrote:
    > >>        It was my understanding that there is no NAT for IPv6.  

    >
    > >>        NAT was created under IPv4 as a means of delaying the eventual
    > >> exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.  

    >
    > >NAT-PT is Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation and it
    > >is a mechanism to translate between IPv6 and IPv4.  So your IPv6
    > >systems can communicate with IPv4 hosts on the internet, and the
    > >router is doing the translation between the protocols (and of course
    > >the addresses as well).

    >
    >         Thanks for the information.  
    >
    >         Regards,
    >
    >                                                         Fred



    Hi, Fred,

    THANKS for your input.

    We do not know why the issue is fixed automatically in the afternoon.
    What a strange !!

    IPv6 NAT-PT is required due to lots of lots of applications are still
    using IPv4, while, at now, IPv6 grows at immortal speed.

    Due to I am a Cisco techie, so just only understanding Cisco. Cisco
    articles state that "CEF" must be disabled for enabling NAT-PT...which
    is no good.

    Cheers
    , Feb 16, 2011
    #5
  6. On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:58:37 -0800 (PST), ""
    <> wrote:

    >Hi, Fred,
    >
    >THANKS for your input.
    >
    >We do not know why the issue is fixed automatically in the afternoon.
    >What a strange !!
    >
    >IPv6 NAT-PT is required due to lots of lots of applications are still
    >using IPv4, while, at now, IPv6 grows at immortal speed.
    >
    >Due to I am a Cisco techie, so just only understanding Cisco. Cisco
    >articles state that "CEF" must be disabled for enabling NAT-PT...which
    >is no good.
    >
    >Cheers


    If IPv6 is moving ahead at immortal speed, why am I am hearing
    so little about it. I do contracting work for a government agency and
    I've yet to hear the subject discussed.

    Thanks for the info. I am a CCNA.



    Fred
    Fred Atkinson, Feb 16, 2011
    #6
  7. Rob Guest

    Fred Atkinson <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:58:37 -0800 (PST), ""
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hi, Fred,
    >>
    >>THANKS for your input.
    >>
    >>We do not know why the issue is fixed automatically in the afternoon.
    >>What a strange !!
    >>
    >>IPv6 NAT-PT is required due to lots of lots of applications are still
    >>using IPv4, while, at now, IPv6 grows at immortal speed.
    >>
    >>Due to I am a Cisco techie, so just only understanding Cisco. Cisco
    >>articles state that "CEF" must be disabled for enabling NAT-PT...which
    >>is no good.
    >>
    >>Cheers

    >
    > If IPv6 is moving ahead at immortal speed, why am I am hearing
    > so little about it. I do contracting work for a government agency and
    > I've yet to hear the subject discussed.
    >
    > Thanks for the info. I am a CCNA.


    Maybe the government of the country you are working in is sticking
    the head in the sand, while in Hong Kong they are keeping a bit more
    up with the times?
    Rob, Feb 16, 2011
    #7
  8. Sam Wilson Guest

    In article <4all.nl>,
    Rob <> wrote:

    > Fred Atkinson <> wrote:
    > > It was my understanding that there is no NAT for IPv6.
    > >
    > > NAT was created under IPv4 as a means of delaying the eventual
    > > exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.

    >
    > NAT-PT is Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation and it
    > is a mechanism to translate between IPv6 and IPv4. So your IPv6
    > systems can communicate with IPv4 hosts on the internet, and the
    > router is doing the translation between the protocols (and of course
    > the addresses as well).


    And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.

    Sam

    Sam Wilson
    Network Team, IT Infrastructure
    Information Services, The University of Edinburgh
    Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    Sam Wilson, Feb 16, 2011
    #8
  9. * Sam Wilson wrote:
    > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.


    IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.
    Lutz Donnerhacke, Feb 16, 2011
    #9
  10. Sam Wilson Guest

    In article <-jena.de>,
    Lutz Donnerhacke <> wrote:

    > * Sam Wilson wrote:
    > > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.

    >
    > IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.


    :) Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual
    stacking) is intended to continue.

    Sam
    Sam Wilson, Feb 17, 2011
    #10
  11. Guest

    On 2月17æ—¥, 下åˆ7時18分, Sam Wilson <> wrote:
    > In article <-jena.de>,
    >  Lutz Donnerhacke <> wrote:
    >
    > > * Sam Wilson wrote:
    > > > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.

    >
    > > IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.

    >
    > :)  Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual
    > stacking) is intended to continue.
    >
    > Sam


    Hi,

    I heard IPv6 in 2001, got IPv6 training in APNIC in 2010, and provided
    POC of IPv6 technologies in 2010 & 2011.
    Dual stack is running, but how about the IPv4 applications which are
    not intented to be developed any more ( until it is faded out ) ? NAT
    must be done in this case.

    Cheers
    , Feb 18, 2011
    #11
  12. Sam Wilson Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "" <> wrote:

    > On 2月17æ—¥, 下åˆ7時18分, Sam Wilson <> wrote:
    > > In article <-jena.de>,
    > >  Lutz Donnerhacke <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > * Sam Wilson wrote:
    > > > > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.

    > >
    > > > IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.

    > >
    > > :)  Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual
    > > stacking) is intended to continue.
    > >
    > > Sam

    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I heard IPv6 in 2001, got IPv6 training in APNIC in 2010, and provided
    > POC of IPv6 technologies in 2010 & 2011.
    > Dual stack is running, but how about the IPv4 applications which are
    > not intented to be developed any more ( until it is faded out ) ? NAT
    > must be done in this case.


    Retire IPv4-only applications or put an application gateway in front of them.
    Developers have had 15 years to prepare for IPv6. Let's get rid of NAT in all its incarnations.

    Sam
    Sam Wilson, Feb 18, 2011
    #12
  13. Rob Guest

    Sam Wilson <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2月17æ—¥, 下åˆ7時18分, Sam Wilson <> wrote:
    >> > In article <-jena.de>,
    >> >  Lutz Donnerhacke <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > * Sam Wilson wrote:
    >> > > > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.
    >> >
    >> > > IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.
    >> >
    >> > :)  Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual
    >> > stacking) is intended to continue.
    >> >
    >> > Sam

    >>
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I heard IPv6 in 2001, got IPv6 training in APNIC in 2010, and provided
    >> POC of IPv6 technologies in 2010 & 2011.
    >> Dual stack is running, but how about the IPv4 applications which are
    >> not intented to be developed any more ( until it is faded out ) ? NAT
    >> must be done in this case.

    >
    > Retire IPv4-only applications or put an application gateway in front of them.
    > Developers have had 15 years to prepare for IPv6. Let's get rid of NAT in all its incarnations.


    You cannot influence what others do (or don't do) on the net.
    So, when you want to or have to migrate to IPv6 yourself, it is only
    natural you want to be able to communicate with IPv4 hosts.

    In fact, the number 1 reason for the slow adoption of IPv6 is that such
    a facility was not designed in from the beginning.
    Rob, Feb 18, 2011
    #13
  14. Dan Lanciani Guest

    In article <-september.org>, (Sam Wilson) writes:
    | In article
    | <>,
    | "" <> wrote:
    |
    | > On 2f17f%, d8 e7f18e, Sam Wilson <> wrote:
    | > > In article <-jena.de>,
    | > > B Lutz Donnerhacke <> wrote:
    | > >
    | > > > * Sam Wilson wrote:
    | > > > > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.
    | > >
    | > > > IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.
    | > >
    | > > :) B Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual
    | > > stacking) is intended to continue.
    | > >
    | > > Sam
    | >
    | > Hi,
    | >
    | > I heard IPv6 in 2001, got IPv6 training in APNIC in 2010, and provided
    | > POC of IPv6 technologies in 2010 & 2011.
    | > Dual stack is running, but how about the IPv4 applications which are
    | > not intented to be developed any more ( until it is faded out ) ? NAT
    | > must be done in this case.
    |
    | Retire IPv4-only applications or put an application gateway in front of them.
    | Developers have had 15 years to prepare for IPv6. Let's get rid of NAT in all its incarnations.

    It isn't at all clear that switching to IPv6 as currently understood will
    eliminate the need for NAT. Remember that NAT was a response to several
    problems.

    One problem was the difficulty of obtaining provider-independent address space.
    NAT makes it possible to switch providers without internal renumbering. It
    seems likely that most people will be unable to obtain portable routable IPv6
    address space, and while IPv6 offers (in some sense) easier renumbering and
    ULAs, the basic problem remains largely unchanged.

    Another problem has been the high rental cost of IPv4 addresses. Although
    price is in some ways related to address scarcity, service providers also
    use addresses as a measure of "usage". Once upon a time it was said that
    everybody would get at least a /48 but that notion seems to have fallen by
    the wayside. It remains to be seen how consumer service providers will
    allocate addresses to their customers once those addresses are really
    useful. Even if people typically get a /64 we may see NAT to deal with
    multiple networks that each want to use 64 bits for their local part.

    Dan Lanciani
    ddl@danlan.*com
    Dan Lanciani, Feb 19, 2011
    #14
  15. Rob Guest

    Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote:
    > Another problem has been the high rental cost of IPv4 addresses. Although
    > price is in some ways related to address scarcity, service providers also
    > use addresses as a measure of "usage". Once upon a time it was said that
    > everybody would get at least a /48 but that notion seems to have fallen by
    > the wayside. It remains to be seen how consumer service providers will
    > allocate addresses to their customers once those addresses are really
    > useful. Even if people typically get a /64 we may see NAT to deal with
    > multiple networks that each want to use 64 bits for their local part.


    Which market are you talking about?
    I get a /48 from my provider for a consumer DSL line and it costs me
    nothing (over the normal price of the line with a single IPv4 address).
    Rob, Feb 19, 2011
    #15
  16. Dan Lanciani Guest

    In article <4all.nl>, (Rob) writes:
    | Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote:
    | > Another problem has been the high rental cost of IPv4 addresses. Although
    | > price is in some ways related to address scarcity, service providers also
    | > use addresses as a measure of "usage". Once upon a time it was said that
    | > everybody would get at least a /48 but that notion seems to have fallen by
    | > the wayside. It remains to be seen how consumer service providers will
    | > allocate addresses to their customers once those addresses are really
    | > useful. Even if people typically get a /64 we may see NAT to deal with
    | > multiple networks that each want to use 64 bits for their local part.
    |
    | Which market are you talking about?

    The market that will exist *once those addresses are really useful*.

    Dan Lanciani
    ddl@danlan.*com
    Dan Lanciani, Feb 19, 2011
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. wd
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,608
    @ndree
    Jul 4, 2003
  2. Yamin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    790
    Yamin
    Jun 29, 2004
  3. Philip D'Ath

    IPV6, NAT-PT

    Philip D'Ath, Feb 25, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    539
    Philip D'Ath
    Feb 25, 2005
  4. Mike Zanker

    Cisco 877 IPv6 issue

    Mike Zanker, Oct 17, 2009, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,105
    waydot
    Oct 30, 2009
  5. Valentin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,295
    Valentin
    Feb 18, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page