<br><br>On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <<a 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></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 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 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>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>