BR support is maturing nicely. A few other vendors with implementations:
Arista -
https://www.arista.com/en/support/toi/eos-4-24-0f/14495-map-t-border-relay
Nokia -
https://infocenter.nokia.com/public/7750SR140R4/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.sr.msisa%2Fhtml%2Fnat.html
Netgate/TNSR - https://docs.netgate.com/tnsr/en/latest/map/index.html
Thx,
Ben
> On Mar 25, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) via NANOG <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> FWIW, MAP has been deployed by few operators (in at least 3 continents that I
> am aware of).
>
> Charter communications is one of the public references (see NANOG preso
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w).
>
> MAP (CPE function) has been supported in OpenWRT software (as well as many
> CPE vendor implementations) for few years now;
> MAP (BR function) has been supported by few vendors including Cisco (in
> IOS-XE and XR).
>
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
> https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata_owrt18_6/map-t
> https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/map
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <[email protected]> on behalf of Vasilenko
> Eduard via NANOG <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM
> To: Jared Brown <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
>
> Hi Jared,
> Theoretically, MAP is better. But
>
> 1. Nobody has implemented it for the router.
> The code for the CGNAT engine gives the same cost/performance.
> No promised advantage from potentially stateless protocol.
>
> 2.MAP needs much bigger address space (not everybody has) because:
> a) powered-off subscribers consume their blocks anyway
> b) it is not possible to add "on the fly" additional 64 ports to the
> particular subscriber that abuse some Apple application (and go to 1k ports
> consumption) that may drive far above any reasonable limit of ports per subs.
> Design should block a big enough number of UDP/TCP ports for every subs
> (even most silent/conservative).
>
> Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Jared Brown
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:49 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
>
> Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After
> watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this.
>
> Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the
> provider side?
>
> Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE, vendor
> support, or something else?
>
>
> NANOG 2017
> Mapping of Address and Port using Translation MAP T: Deployment at Charter
> Communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w
>
>
> - Jared
>
