IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

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 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 
> <mailto: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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20141206/7e0da12a/attachment.htm>