On 07/12/2014 09:08, Ca By wrote: > On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> >> >
