Hi Ben, Dave, Some hopefully useful information below, it’s an interesting question on autodetection.
The UK IPv6 Council has run sessions on transition technologies, reach out if there is something specific: IPv6 Transition Workshop, Sep 2018 – UK IPv6 Council<https://www.ipv6.org.uk/2018/10/26/ipv6-transition-workshop-sep-2018/> Do you follow the council’s output? This a public list from Lee Howard (not sure if continues to be updated) showing known deployments of IPv6 transitions across the globe: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ksOoWOaRdRyjZnjLSikHf4O5L1OUTNOO_7NK9vcVApc/edit#gid=0 The best know lw4o6 deployment I know of is DT, Terastream project in Europe. I am not aware of any “operational issues” output from them specifically. Closer to home the Sky team have been deploying MAP-T in Italia I believe. Richard’s slides: slides (PDF) (ipv6.org.uk)<https://www.ipv6.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Richard-Patterson-MAP-Overview-UK-IPv6-Council-2018.pdf> In terms of summarising transition tech I find Jordi Palet an extremely valuable contributor on deployment issues and comparisons, c.f. ipv6-transition-v7 (apnic.net)<https://upload.apnic.net/uploads/ipv6-transition-deployment-v7_1519533393.pdf> With lw4o6 or MAP-T/E then the protocols have been designed to be able to avoid the main and major operational issues, by using an IPv4 as a Service approach, either employing translation and encaps. It is the operators choice to then couple these with the “addressing sharing”, in line with their own IPv4 address constraints. So in terms of operational issues is the address-sharing known problems that you seek. Have a look at Jordi’s paper above, especially the awesome table on page 56, and also the list of CGN problem areas… BTW Microsoft xbox supports/prefers IPv6! PC clients are still a problem for IPv4 address sharing. Regards, Nick From: uknof <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dave Bell Sent: 19 December 2020 16:12 To: Ben McKeegan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [uknof] Operational issues with IP address sharing with MAP-E, MAP-T or lw4over6 on residential network Hi Ben, This is also something we have been investigating recently. We have found that CPE support for transition technologies is pretty limited outside of WRT. I also have concerns about gaming support. I don’t believe any of the current generation of consoles support IPv6 for their services. I did a quick experiment a few weeks ago and found that none of the popular gaming services on PC (steam, uplay, epic) support v6 only. VoIP too is another service which concerns me. I think the only way to be certain about the impact of these technologies is a trial. We are looking to run one in the next few months. I would be interested also to hear of any real world deployments and the support impact that they have. Regards, Dave On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 15:44, Ben McKeegan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear UKNOF, I have been asked to evaluate the feasibility of deploying lw4over6 with IPv4 address sharing as an entry level option over an existing and growing dual-stacked altnet, primarily for new residential customers. My google foo is failing me on this one as I am struggling to find any reports within the last few years as to how nicely various consumer applications and devices play behind a shared IPv4 address, where each subscriber is allocated a fixed sub-range of ports. For example, one area I am aware of which can present a problem with CG-NATs is the use of games consoles for online multiplayer gaming, however, I am unsure to what extent this can now be mitigated by enabling IPv6 on the consoles and/or moving all the NAT to the CPE to give the user full control of port forwarding (within their restricted range) and to avoid the double-NAT. Before I put in a budget request for a large selection of games consoles, online gaming subscriptions and other consumer devices to go in my test lab, which will no doubt raise a few questioning eyebrows in the finance department :-), I was wondering if anybody on this list had any operational experience of running lw4over6 or similar technologies such as MAP-E/MAP-T on a residential network, and would be willing to share their experiences of what is and isn't likely to work. What proportion of a typical residential user base are likely to be adversely affected by IP address sharing? Can anybody point me to any recent studies on this sort of thing? I also wonder to what extent we might be able to automatically detect and mitigate the common problematic use cases, by flagging such subscriber accounts as candidates for upgrade to dedicated IPv4 addresses. Many thanks, Ben. -- Ben McKeegan Netservers Limited
