IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 12/06/2014 10:08 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez at otenet.gr 
> <mailto: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?
>

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)

cheers,
Yannis

p.s: the word in softwires is that both lw4o6 and MAP-E will become RFCs 
pretty soon

>     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: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20141206/70236530/attachment.htm>