IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp

Tue Sep 26 20:50:52 UTC 2017

On 9/23/17, 7:14 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Fredrik Sallinen"
<nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of fredrik.sallinen at gmail.com> wrote:

>Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile
>networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?

Should work fine in landline networks, but (as Jordi says) it’s hard to
find support in retail CPE your customers are likely to own. Same is true
for MAP-T and MAP-E.

If anyone knows of retail CPE supporting any of those, or if you’re a
gateway vendor selling those, let me know, I’m interested.

Lee

>
>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:28 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
><jordi.palet at 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-w
>>ith-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-bounces at nanog.org> en nombre de Brock Tice
>><brock at bmwl.co>
>> Responder a: <brock at bmwl.co>
>> Fecha: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017, 17:14
>> Para: Fredrik Sallinen <fredrik.sallinen at gmail.com>
>> CC: <nanog at 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.
>>
>>
>>
>