On 7/22/20 5:15 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone implemented a MAP-T solution in production? I am looking for
feedback on this as a deployment strategy for an IPv6 only core design. My
concern is MAP-T CE stability and overhead on the network. The BR will have to
do overloaded NAT anyway to access IPv4 only resources. The idea being that
when IPv4 is no longer needed, this will be a quicker “clean-up” project than a
dual-stack solution.
I have reviewed Jordan Gotlieb’s presentation from Charter and would love to
hear if this is still in use at Charter or if was ever fully implemented and
the experiences)
I’d love any real life examples and success/failure stories.
I'd love to hear about this (or MAP-E, or lw4o6) as well especially with
regard to CPE support. My preferred CPE vendor keeps punting on it
(though they do claim to support 464XLAT), and I'd really like something
to point them to that will show them it's a "real thing". Getting rid
of state at the CGN as is (or can be, at least) necessary with 464XLAT
seems like a real boon while placing minimal additional burden on the CPE.
--
Brandon Martin
