Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:28 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > Fully agree, 464XLAT is the way to go. > > We have tested this in many IPv6-only access deployments, non-cellular > networks (cellular is well tested by T-Mobile and others, that have got it in > production for years). > > We always have the issue of the CPEs support, but this is the same problem if > you want to go to lw4o6, MAP, etc. In general, newer transition mechanisms, > aren’t well supported. > > So, you either use OpenWRT if you can re-flash the CPEs, or you push your > vendors to make sure they provide a firmware upgrade. > > This is the reason I started to work on an update of the RFC7084 > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/ and > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/) > and see also the related discussion in v6ops. > > Also, I run a panel with CPE vendors in the last week APNIC meeting, and the > interesting thing is that they confirmed there is no any technical issue to > support those (hardware is ok), and they have already developed it, just > waiting for customers to ask for it. > > https://conference.apnic.net/44/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof-discussion-with-ipv6-ce-vendors > > I will compile a report out of this panel ASAP. > > So please, keep pushing your vendors for it! > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Brock Tice <br...@bmwl.co> > Responder a: <br...@bmwl.co> > Fecha: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017, 17:14 > Para: Fredrik Sallinen <fredrik.salli...@gmail.com> > CC: <nanog@nanog.org> > Asunto: Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp > > We are small but we are just about out of IPv4 and aren't going to get > or buy any more. We have been testing for a while. > > > Shall I go for IPv6-only deployment or dual stack? > > You should plan for adding customers eventually that are IPv6-only, > unless you have all the v4 you will ever need, and you will need to > reserve IPv4 address blocks for translation. > > > How to identify address CPE and legacy application issues? > > Legacy application issues can be solved (for the most part) with > 464XLAT, which also solves IP-literal-in-HTML problems. You need PLAT at > the core and CLAT at the client. Unfortunately so far the only good way > we've found to do CLAT is OpenWRT on the CPE or router. We are getting > ready to bundle Linksys routers flashed with OpenWRT. > > For PLAT at the core we are running jool. It's actually quite simple to > set up and we are currently using OSPF to do anycast, but we will > probably be migrating to a single set of HA servers in the core. The > good news is that even if it goes down, Netflix and Facebook will still > work as they are fully functional on v6. > > We have tested this in my home and at my office with IPv6-only > VLANs/wireless SSIDs, mostly without a hitch. > > If you run this setup without the CLAT on the client side you get NAT64 > so it still will work for most things. > > I would be very, very happy if larger ISPs would put pressure on router > manufacturers to support CLAT, we have no clout. I would also love to > hear if any of this is stupid or if there's a better way. > > --Brock > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > 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. > > >
