Hi Tom, CGNAT is the most supported by the technology available in pretty much every device. Even keeping an audit trail of IP/port mappings is relatively easy (look into deterministic NAT – it will save you a lot of headache). You can likely lab it up with gear you already have, unlike the newer transition technologies that we’ve been discussing.
However, from my experience, the customer impact of going through 2 layers of NAT (NAT44) causes a lot of unhappy customers. I enabled it on my home connection for a few weeks to see how it went, and I was surprised that a lot of things just worked… Youtube, Netflix, etc had no issues. But there were key things such as Facebook Messenger voice and video calls that broke, which caused my family to get rather upset with me. Console gaming is also a common area of problems. For these types of Internet services, the profit margin can get eaten up quickly by the helpdesk calls. As a side note, from internal discussions here (ie speculation, no real evidence to back it up), home users are likely to be impacted far more than business users, due to the difference in usage. Regards, Philip From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Tom Ammon Sent: Friday, 12 October 2018 2:39 PM To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:08 PM Brock Tice <br...@bmwl.co<mailto:br...@bmwl.co>> wrote: On 10/09/2018 06:24 PM, Philip Loenneker wrote: > I have asked several vendors we deal with about the newer technologies > such as 464XLAT, and have had some responses indicating they will > investigate internally, however we have not made much progress yet. One > vendor suggested their device supports NAT46 and NAT64 so may support > 464XLAT, but since it is incidental rather than an official feature, it > may not support the full CLAT requirements. I have been meaning to do > some tests but haven’t had a chance yet. It is also a higher price point > than our current CPEs. > > > > I have spoken to people who have looked into options such as OpenWRT > (which supports several of these technolgoies), however the R&D and > ongoing support is a significant roadblock to overcome. > We looked into this somewhat intently ~6 months ago and had not much luck from vendors. Barely on their radar if at all. We used our own custom OpenWRT build on a few select, tested consumer routers to do 464XLAT. In the end we went to dual-stack with CGN on IPv4. I wrote up some documentation on how we did it on my blog, but in the end I can't recommend the setup we used. I would love RouterOS and (various mfgr) CPE support for 464XLAT, then I would be ready to give it another shot. It sounds like I am where you were 6 months ago. We've been looking at NAT64, MAP-T, potentially 464XLAT, and then dual stack with CGN on the v4 side. What did you experience with the dual-stack/CGN approach that keeps you from recommending it? Academically, that setup seems the least fraught with problems among all of the options. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Ammon M: (801) 784-2628 thomasam...@gmail.com<mailto:thomasam...@gmail.com> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
