<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/06/2014 10:08 PM, Ca By wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD6AjGRbffyaKNnmsbjjPdM6dkByxSvFcepzj2KopQRfZ+FbDg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dez@otenet.gr">dez@otenet.gr</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hello,<br>
<br>
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 </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hear this argument frequently (stateful bad, stateless
good) but it is seldom coupled with deployment experience.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
for one, both MAP-E and LW4o6 are quite fresh compared to -for
example- DS-lite. Personally, I (theoretically) prefer lw4o6 over
ds-lite, not because it's stateless, but because it "less stateful"
(since it carries less state in the AFTR)<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Yannis<br>
<br>
p.s: the word in softwires is that both lw4o6 and MAP-E will become
RFCs pretty soon<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD6AjGRbffyaKNnmsbjjPdM6dkByxSvFcepzj2KopQRfZ+FbDg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>been running a native (dual-stack) IPv6 network for
years, so you're right, IPv4-only CGN would be a move
backwards. <br>
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<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Yannis<br>
<br>
p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought
of it as a mobile solution.<br>
<br>
On 12/06/2014 06:24 PM, Ca By wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,
<div><br>
<br>
On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez@otenet.gr');"
target="_blank">dez@otenet.gr</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at
10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true">dez@otenet.gr</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong. <br>
<br>
We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more
deployed and mature on many fronts. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">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. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please take cgn off the table if possible. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers
are much more insightful than anything you will learn on
this list. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2
limitation that prevents native ipv6. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">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 :)<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Yannis<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>