MAP-E

Fri Aug 2 15:39:06 UTC 2019

Is there a summary presentation someplace laying out the options that
are active in the wild with some deployment stats?

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG
<nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>
> I understand that, but the inconvenient is the fix allocation of ports per client, and not all the clients use the same number of ports. Every option has good and bad things.
>
>
>
> MAP is less efficient in terms of maximizing the “use” of the existing IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-bounces at nanog.org en nombre de baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi
>
>
>
> My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid the expense and operative nightmare of having to run a redundant NAT server setup with thousands of users. MAP is the only alternative that avoids a provider run NAT server.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:38 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>
> Ask the vendor to support RFC8585.
>
>
>
> Also, you can do it with OpenWRT.
>
>
>
> I think 464XLAT is a better option and both of them are supported by OpenWRT.
>
>
>
> You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 14:20, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-bounces at nanog.org en nombre de baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> Are there any known public deployments of MAP-E? What about CPE routers with support?
>
>
>
> The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E appears to be the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a packet and route it as normal. No need to invest in anything as our core routers can already do that. No worries about scale.
>
>
>
> BUT - our current CPE has zero support. We are too small that they will make this feature just for us, so I need to convince them there is going to be a demand. Alternatively I need to find a different CPE vendor that has MAP-E support, but are there any?
>
>
>
> What is holding MAP-E back?  In my view MAP-E could be the end game for IPv4. Customers get full IPv6 and enough of IPv4 to be somewhat compatible. The ISP networks are not forced to do a lot of processing such as CGN otherwise requires.
>
>
>
> I read some posts from Japan where users are reporting a deployment of MAP-E. Anyone know about that?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
>