new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE

Tom Ammon thomasammon at
Fri Oct 12 03:39:19 UTC 2018

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:08 PM Brock Tice <brock at> wrote:

> On 10/09/2018 06:24 PM, Philip Loenneker wrote:
> > I have asked several vendors we deal with about the newer technologies
> > such as 464XLAT, and have had some responses indicating they will
> > investigate internally, however we have not made much progress yet. One
> > vendor suggested their device supports NAT46 and NAT64 so may support
> > 464XLAT, but since it is incidental rather than an official feature, it
> > may not support the full CLAT requirements. I have been meaning to do
> > some tests but haven’t had a chance yet. It is also a higher price point
> > than our current CPEs.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have spoken to people who have looked into options such as OpenWRT
> > (which supports several of these technolgoies), however the R&D and
> > ongoing support is a significant roadblock to overcome.
> >
> We looked into this somewhat intently ~6 months ago and had not much
> luck from vendors. Barely on their radar if at all.
> We used our own custom OpenWRT build on a few select, tested consumer
> routers to do 464XLAT. In the end we went to dual-stack with CGN on
> IPv4. I wrote up some documentation on how we did it on my blog, but in
> the end I can't recommend the setup we used.
> I would love RouterOS and (various mfgr) CPE support for 464XLAT, then I
> would be ready to give it another shot.

It sounds like I am where you were 6 months ago. We've been looking at
NAT64, MAP-T, potentially 464XLAT, and then dual stack with CGN on the v4
side. What did you experience with the dual-stack/CGN approach that keeps
you from recommending it? Academically, that setup seems the least fraught
with problems among all of the options.

Tom Ammon
M: (801) 784-2628
thomasammon at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list