IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 07/12/2014 09:08, Ca By wrote:
> 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.

unmanaged stateless bad (see experience with anycast-6to4 and Teredo).

Indeed I think we lack feedback on experience with ISP-managed stateless,
except for rude words about RFC 6732 "6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels".

   Brian

> 
> 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
>>>
>>
>