Its that time of the year...
...when we're starting to deploy yet another IPv6-only technology :) Hello all, as a fairly large ISP (for Greek standards at least), we've been affected by IPv4 exhaustion for quite some time now. A few years back we gave LW4o6 a go, as documented here https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/11-lw4o6-deployment-as6799.pdf . In the end, it did not work out very well. Quoting myself (from v6ops mailing list), the reasons behind that were: "In no particular order: 1. CPE (almost OK after ~2 years and god knows how many iterations) 2. lwaftr performance (worth noting the the lwaftr is implemented as a VNF 3. vendor's reluctance to continue (much needed) dev/ment because of *lack of interest from other ISPs* " Please take extra note of (3). In any case, being the optimists we are, and having supportive mgmt, we decided (once more) against burying ourselves deeper into CGN. This time we're going with MAP-E (which incidentally was our first choice), mainly because we understand it and our MAP BR vendor does too :) . So, as I already mentioned, we're just about to deploy it commercially. We've tested with 2 CPE vendors sucessfully and we're just ironing out some provisioning details before launching. Deployment will be gradual of course and very very cautious. Unofficially, we are aware of a couple of similar trials from other ISPs and we'd love to hear about people who have already deployed such technologies (IPv6-only with IPv4aas) or are thinking about doing so. After all, that is exactly what this WG is about :) thanks for reading, Yannis
Hi Yannis, Taking advantage of your email and IPv4aaS transition mechanisms ... I will remind all that you should keep insisting your CE vendors to make sure to comply with RFC8585. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8585/ One more related document (finally published this week) is RFC8683: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8683/ Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 29/11/19 11:47, "ipv6-wg en nombre de Yannis Nikolopoulos" <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de dez@otenet.gr> escribió: ...when we're starting to deploy yet another IPv6-only technology :) Hello all, as a fairly large ISP (for Greek standards at least), we've been affected by IPv4 exhaustion for quite some time now. A few years back we gave LW4o6 a go, as documented here https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/11-lw4o6-deployment-as6799.pdf . In the end, it did not work out very well. Quoting myself (from v6ops mailing list), the reasons behind that were: "In no particular order: 1. CPE (almost OK after ~2 years and god knows how many iterations) 2. lwaftr performance (worth noting the the lwaftr is implemented as a VNF 3. vendor's reluctance to continue (much needed) dev/ment because of *lack of interest from other ISPs* " Please take extra note of (3). In any case, being the optimists we are, and having supportive mgmt, we decided (once more) against burying ourselves deeper into CGN. This time we're going with MAP-E (which incidentally was our first choice), mainly because we understand it and our MAP BR vendor does too :) . So, as I already mentioned, we're just about to deploy it commercially. We've tested with 2 CPE vendors sucessfully and we're just ironing out some provisioning details before launching. Deployment will be gradual of course and very very cautious. Unofficially, we are aware of a couple of similar trials from other ISPs and we'd love to hear about people who have already deployed such technologies (IPv6-only with IPv4aas) or are thinking about doing so. After all, that is exactly what this WG is about :) thanks for reading, Yannis ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 29/11/2019 11:47, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
A few years back we gave LW4o6 a go. In the end, it did not work out very well.
I think that you might be much happier with MAP-E as it is stateless and keeps NAT at the right place (CPE). No matter how hard you try, at the end of the day LW4o6 is still stateful mechanism. Please, keep us in sync how the deployment is going. Just out of curiosity - how many ports per CPE did you configure? Cheers, Jan
Hi Jan, On 12/1/19 9:16 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
On 29/11/2019 11:47, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
A few years back we gave LW4o6 a go. In the end, it did not work out very well.
I think that you might be much happier with MAP-E as it is stateless and keeps NAT at the right place (CPE).
I think so too. If CPE issues do not arise, we're hoping that the BR performance will be satisfying.
No matter how hard you try, at the end of the day LW4o6 is still stateful mechanism. Please, keep us in sync how the deployment is going.
Just out of curiosity - how many ports per CPE did you configure?
1008 ports
Cheers, Jan
cheers, Yannis
participants (3)
-
Jan Zorz - Go6
-
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
-
Yannis Nikolopoulos