IPv6 deployment excuses

Tue Jul 5 08:36:34 UTC 2016

On 5 July 2016 at 07:27, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, but
>> both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a lack of
>> control as seen from the end user point of view (no port forwarding etc).
>>
>
> What it does however, is make things like GRE work. Some are surprised
> that there is actually non A+P protocols being used by customers. For
> instance legacy PPTP uses this, so some business VPNs run into problem with
> MAP or LW4o6.

We will tell you to use IPv6 for that or make you pay extra for a dedicated
IPv4 address. Everyone else do not need to help pay for a CGN solution just
because you did not move ahead with IPv6.

To clarify, right now at this moment we are pure dual stack with everyone
have both their own IPv4 and a /48 IPv6 prefix. But I can see some time in
the not too distant future where there will be market acceptance of a
solution with crippled IPv4 MAP style NAT plus full connectivity using
IPv6. In fact I believe we are already there as most people really do not
care as long their gmail and Facebook works.

The only thing that stops me from deploying MAP is lack of vendor support.
I am working on that.

Regards,

Baldur