IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

Ca By cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 6 21:08:08 CET 2014


On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez at otenet.gr> 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 <dez at otenet.gr
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez at otenet.gr');>> wrote:
>
>>  On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>
>>  On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez at otenet.gr>
>> 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20141206/2214fc58/attachment.html 


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list