new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE

Wed Oct 10 14:57:02 UTC 2018

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:50 AM Philip Loenneker <
Philip.Loenneker at tasmanet.com.au> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
>
>
> This article is now 11 months old, but may be of interest to you:
>
> https://blog.apnic.net/2017/11/09/ce-vendors-share-thoughts-ipv6-support/
>
>
>
> Some quotes:
>
>    - The major issue is the lack of support provided by CE vendors for
>    both older (DS-Lite, lw4o6), and newer (464XLAT, MAP T/E) transition
>    mechanisms. Some vendors provide it ‘on-demand’ for big customers, but
>    small and medium ISPs don’t have the same purchasing capability, creating a
>    big issue for deployment.
>    - All panellists said their service providers’ products supported
>    lw4o6, MAP-E/T, and 464XLAT, but because of the lack of support for these
>    mechanisms in RFC7084, it is not standard in retail CE.
>    - There are no new hardware requirements that will exclude vendors
>    supporting all these transitions mechanisms — it is really a matter of very
>    few kilobytes.
>    - The panel agreed that minimum orders were not considered when
>    implementing these mechanisms. For them, the fact is that IPv6 needs to be
>    implemented, and there is a need to support new transition mechanisms and
>    support service providers and retail users. Also, there is a need for
>    products to pass some certification requirements (again the idea of
>    RFC7084-bis is strongly supported by the panellists).
>
>
>
> Telstra did a presentation as AusNOG back in September discussing their
> IPv6 implementation which was really great to see. They have their own
> branded CPEs with 464XLAT. Unfortunately I don’t think there is a video of
> it, only a rather short slide deck. You can see it here:
>
>
> https://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-2018/presentations/2.8_David_Woolley_AusNOG2018.pdf
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> I would like to hear how others are implementing these transition
> technologies.
>
>
>

Just my own personal musing below

There several mobile providers that planning to use 5G/4G for home
broadband.  Some are going to focus on urban areas while others will focus
on rural areas.

My expectation is that that these mobile providers will bring their
existing mobile approach to the wireless home broadband space.  That said,
i believe 464XLAT specifically will be used in home router deployments that
will have a mobile modem.  These devices are likely to look more like home
gateways than existing mobile  hotspot pucks.

Regards,
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Tom Ammon
> *Sent:* Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:59 PM
> *To:* NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE
>
>
>
> Are there any CPE vendors providing MAP-T features yet? I'm working on
> rolling v6 to residential subscribers and am trying to understand what the
> landscape looks like on the CPE side, for MAP-T specifically.
>
>
>
> What about 464XLAT on a CPE - is that a thing? I know that 464XLAT has
> been running for a while on some mobile provider networks, but are there
> any vendors out there with a decent/mature CLAT implementation in a CPE
> product that is ready to buy right now?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Ammon
> M: (801) 784-2628
> thomasammon at gmail.com
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20181010/7e1fb395/attachment.html>