While I believe I in time will get at least 90% of residential users on
IPv6, the track record for commercial customers is close to 0%. Also the
number of websites and other Internet services with ipv6 is abysmal. We are
somewhat saved by the American internet gigants which means that by traffic
vo
NAT444 CGN does NOT solve an IPv6 problem at all. It solves an IPv4 shortage
problem at best and is not designed as a long-term solution. I cannot force
customers to buy new equipment to make them IPv6 compliant. The best option is
to support, fully and unabashedly, IPv6 and help with the transi
On 25/Jul/20 03:24, Randy Bush wrote:
> a great path. fork lift all cpe and cgn in the core. the vendors'
> dream
All major vendors are shipping IPv6. Some even 464XLAT. And yet they
will not put those forward as long term solutions.
As Randy points out, CG-NAT sells plenty in license fees.
> OK Randy. How about a suggestion that is useful.
>>> I’m leaning toward DS-lite and NAT444
>> a great path. fork lift all cpe and cgn in the core. the vendors'
>> dream
$subject. map-e. ... the list is long. ds-lite is close to the bottom
of it, except if you are a vendor salesperson.
rand
On 7/24/20 10:46 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
OK Randy. How about a suggestion that is useful.
My approach thus far absent CPE support for transition mechanisms has
been native IPv6 across the board + NAT444, but I use a VRF to
regionalize the NAT444 routing and bring it to a semi-centralized
ga
OK Randy. How about a suggestion that is useful.
- Brian
> On Jul 24, 2020, at 8:24 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> I’m leaning toward DS-lite and NAT444
>
> a great path. fork lift all cpe and cgn in the core. the vendors'
> dream
>
> randy
> I’m leaning toward DS-lite and NAT444
a great path. fork lift all cpe and cgn in the core. the vendors'
dream
randy
I’ve gotten a lot of great feedback and want to restate some of my thoughts for
further discussion:
1. It seems like the MAP-T is still in an initial phase of
development/production. I’ve seen a few other people mentioning it, but it is
early in deployment today.
2. When working with smaller a
On 22/07/2020 22:15, 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 anywa
On 7/22/20 6:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> The comparison between MAP-T and 464XLAT is not just state.
>
> With 464XLAT you can have more subscribers (almost unlimited) per IP address,
> without a limitation on the number of ports, so you save a lot of money in
> addresses.
>
> And of co
The comparison between MAP-T and 464XLAT is not just state.
With 464XLAT you can have more subscribers (almost unlimited) per IP address,
without a limitation on the number of ports, so you save a lot of money in
addresses.
And of course, a limited number of ports in MAP-T means troubles for cu
I’m here ;-)
I’m tracking all possible products and deployments of NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT. I’ve
done a few of them myself for many customers.
The idea is to bring the relevant RFCs to Internet Standards
We could try to do the same also with MAP-T and others. However, my point right
now i
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:18 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 overloa
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
For the record, we are asking similar questions about 464XLAT in v6ops. If you
are deploying it, please advise Jordi Palet Martinez.
For those unfamiliar with them, MAP-T and 464XLAT are each deployment
frameworks for IPv4/IPv6 translation, as described in RFCs 4164, 4166, 4167,
and 7915.
Sent
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
