G
> Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard
> Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM
> To: Jared Brown , "nanog@nanog.org"
> Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
>
>Hi Jared,
>Theoretically, MAP is better. But
>
>1. Nobody has implemented i
of Vasilenko
Eduard via NANOG
Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM
To: Jared Brown , "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
Hi Jared,
Theoretically, MAP is better. But
1. Nobody has implemented it for
It comes from actual measurements in residential networks that already offer
IPv6.
In typical residential networks, a very high % of the traffic is
Google/Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, CDNs, etc., which all are IPv6 enabled.
Typically, is also similar in mobile networks, and this has been confirm
It appears that JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG
said:
>At the end, if you turn on IPv6 to residential customers, typically you will
>get 70-80% IPv6 traffic, so the state in the NAT64 using 464XLAT is lower and
>lower every day.
Not disagreeing, but where does that number come from? Anectodall
Jordi -
Very nice indeed! Please pass along my thanks to your coauthors for
this most excellent (and badly needed) document!
:-)
/John
> On 25 Mar 2022, at 4:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG
> wrote:
>
> The cost of deploying MAP in CPEs is a bit higher than 464XLAT, which i
]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 12:44 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Jared Brown
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
FWIW, MAP has been deployed by few operators (in at least 3 continents that I
am aware of).
Charter communications is one of the public references
@nanog.org
Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After
watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this.
Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the
provider s
big enough number of UDP/TCP ports for every subs (even
most silent/conservative).
Ed/
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Jared Brown
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:49 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6
Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After watching a
NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this.
Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the
provider side?
Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE, ven
9 matches
Mail list logo
