Jordi -
Very nice indeed! Please pass along my thanks to your coauthors for
this most excellent (and badly needed) document!
:-)
/John
> On 25 Mar 2022, at 4:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> The cost of deploying MAP in CPEs is a bit higher than 464XLAT, which is not
> an issue anyway. There are several open source implementations for both of
> them.
>
> It is true that MAP avoids state in the network, however, it means higher
> "cost" for users in terms of restrictions of ports. It also means more IPv4
> addresses even if the ports are not used. In some countries, like India, MAP
> was not alllowed by the regulator, because the lack of proper logging, so it
> was push-back by the bigger provider (probably the bigger in the world - Jio)
> of IPv6.
>
> At the end, if you turn on IPv6 to residential customers, typically you will
> get 70-80% IPv6 traffic, so the state in the NAT64 using 464XLAT is lower and
> lower every day.
>
> With 464XLAT there is no restriction on the number of ports per subscriber,
> the usage of IPv4 addresses is more efficient, and of course, you can use the
> same protocol in cellular networks, with also make simpler the support of
> backup links in CPEs (for example GPON in the primary link and 4G in the
> backup one).
>
> Last but not least, 464XLAT also allows enterprise networks to swich to
> IPv6-only (with IPv4aaS) providing a smooth transition to a final IPv6-only
> stage.
>
> The fact that in terms of users 464XLAT exceeds all the other transition
> tehcnologies all together, should mean something.
>
> There is a bunch of information at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/,
> which is just waiting for the final OK from the IESG to jumpt to the final
> stage (RFC Editor).
>
> Regads,
> Jordi
>
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
