On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > IPv4-only CGN was never on the table to begin with. DS-lite doesn't seem > to scale so well, that's why we were focusing on the more stateless > approaches. We have > I hear this argument frequently (stateful bad, stateless good) but it is seldom coupled with deployment experience. Makes you wonder why some of the largest ipv6-only deployments are stateful (ds-lite, 464xlat, ...) and the stateless solutions are not even published as rfcs or deployed at scale yet? > been running a native (dual-stack) IPv6 network for years, so you're > right, IPv4-only CGN would be a move backwards. > I also agree about testing, PoCs and friendly trials but we don't have the > luxury to test a few solutions before deciding, as time is of essence > > cheers, > Yannis > > p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a > mobile solution. > > On 12/06/2014 06:24 PM, Ca By wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I >>> know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to >>> hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6 >>> (not just trials though, but actual commercial services) >>> >> >> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012. >> They use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be just a >> particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G >> up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE. >> >> >> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong. >> >> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The >> > > Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more deployed and mature > on many fronts. > > > >> problem is that our management prefers "proven" solutions (i.e deployed >> by other ISPs) and the only proven solutions I'm aware of are full blown >> CGN solutions. >> > > Please take cgn off the table if possible. > > At this point i will suggest that you also consider rfc6877. It is > better than ipv4 only cgn since major traffic source (netflix, fb, google, > youtube....) are already ipv6 end to end. > > t-mobile us has deployed rfc6877 to over 25 million subscribers. It is > baked and works well for mobile, but you asked for residential. Rfc6877 > also covers the fixed line case too. > > Anyhow, the solution that is best for your network is the one that > proves itself best in your own testing and proof of concept. This will show > deal-breakers and vapor ware > > Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers are much more > insightful than anything you will learn on this list. > > I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2 limitation that prevents > native ipv6. > > I would avoid ipv4 only cgn entirely since the roi will be so poor, it > is a move backwards and you will have to do the real ipv6 project again in > a few years. > > That's why I was trying to find commercially deployed cases based on >> either MAP or lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be of value if I could >> prove that, for example, DS-lite is not being deployed either :) >> >> cheers, >> Yannis >> > >
