Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Josh Moore jmoore at atcnetworks.net
Mon Jul 6 15:41:19 UTC 2015


You can still carry the v6 NLRIs in MP-BGP though right?




Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M


From: Mel Beckman [mailto:mel at beckman.org]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:49 AM
To: andrew
Cc: Lee Howard; Josh Moore; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure  because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes.


-mel via cell

On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <andrew at ethernaut.io<mailto:andrew at ethernaut.io>> wrote:
Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6?
-------- Original message --------
From: Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:mel at beckman.org>>
Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org<mailto:Lee at asgard.org>>
Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore at atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore at atcnetworks.net>>, nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up!

-mel beckman

> On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org<mailto:Lee at asgard.org>> wrote:
>
> Some thoughts. . .
>
> ³Native dual-stack² is ³native IPv4 and native IPv6.²
>
> ³Dual-stack² might be native, or might by ³native IPv6 plus IPv4 address
> sharing.²
>
> Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are
> operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them
> close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same
> path. You can¹t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that¹s not the
> end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is
> the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.
>
> Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these.
> CGN is the only one that doesn¹t require updates to the home gateway. The
> more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
>
> Think about how you¹ll position it to customers. It¹s difficult to change
> a customer¹s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer
> profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off
> buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4
> addresses to give you time; contact a broker.
>
> You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don¹t
> buy anything you can¹t manage over IPv6, including servers and
> applications. Sorry, vendor, I can¹t buy your cluster, I don¹t have the
> IPv4 address space to provision it.
>
> Lee
>
> On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore"
> <nanog-bounces at nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of jmoore at atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore at atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
>
>> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the
>> CPE.
>> Consider the following:
>>
>> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack
>> with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow
>> regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best
>> practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If
>> this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help
>> with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still
>> need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution
>> but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without
>> NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and
>> efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this:
>> What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what
>> is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy
>> and goal be?
>>
>> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and
>> while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there;
>> I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate
>> issue: IPv4 depletion.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Joshua Moore
>> Network Engineer
>> ATC Broadband
>> 912.632.3161
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list