Is there a summary presentation someplace laying out the options that are active in the wild with some deployment stats?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > I understand that, but the inconvenient is the fix allocation of ports per > client, and not all the clients use the same number of ports. Every option > has good and bad things. > > > > MAP is less efficient in terms of maximizing the “use” of the existing IPv4 > addresses. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/ > > > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" > <nanog-boun...@nanog.org en nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> escribió: > > > > Hi Jordi > > > > My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid > the expense and operative nightmare of having to run a redundant NAT server > setup with thousands of users. MAP is the only alternative that avoids a > provider run NAT server. > > > > Regards, > > > > Baldur > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:38 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG > <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > Ask the vendor to support RFC8585. > > > > Also, you can do it with OpenWRT. > > > > I think 464XLAT is a better option and both of them are supported by OpenWRT. > > > > You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64. > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 2/8/19 14:20, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" > <nanog-boun...@nanog.org en nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> escribió: > > > > Hello > > > > Are there any known public deployments of MAP-E? What about CPE routers with > support? > > > > The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are forced > to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E appears to be > the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a packet and route it > as normal. No need to invest in anything as our core routers can already do > that. No worries about scale. > > > > BUT - our current CPE has zero support. We are too small that they will make > this feature just for us, so I need to convince them there is going to be a > demand. Alternatively I need to find a different CPE vendor that has MAP-E > support, but are there any? > > > > What is holding MAP-E back? In my view MAP-E could be the end game for IPv4. > Customers get full IPv6 and enough of IPv4 to be somewhat compatible. The ISP > networks are not forced to do a lot of processing such as CGN otherwise > requires. > > > > I read some posts from Japan where users are reporting a deployment of MAP-E. > Anyone know about that? > > > > Regards, > > > > Baldur > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >
