MAP-E
Lee Howard
lee.howard at retevia.net
Thu Aug 8 20:15:01 UTC 2019
On 8/2/19 1:10 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
>
> The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as Sony
> Playstation Network will put those addresses in the black list, so you
> need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for
> 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the addresses dynamically.
>
> Furthermore, if some users need less ports than others, you
> “infra-utilize” those addresses, which again is not the case for
> 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets automatically as many ports as he needs
> at every moment.
>
> So, you save money in terms of addresses, that you can invest in a
> couple of servers running a redundant NAT64 setup
> (https://www.jool.mx/en/session-synchronization.html). Those servers
> can be actually VMs, so you don’t need dedicated hardware, especially
> because when you deploy IPv6 with 464XLAT, typically 75% (and going
> up) of you traffic will be IPv6 and only 25% will go thru the NAT64.
>
You work on much smaller networks than I do if a "couple of servers
running Jool" can handle your load. Jool is great, and the team that
built it is great, but a couple of 10Gbps NICs on a pizza box doesn't go
very far. I've tried 100Gbps and can't get the throughput with any
normal CPU. Hoping to get back to it and run some actual measurements.
Lee
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 2/8/19 18:24, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl"
> <nanog-bounces at nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org> en nombre de
> baldur.norddahl at gmail.com <mailto:baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
> The goal is to minimize cost. Assuming 4 bits for the MAP routing (16
> users sharing one IPv4), leaving 12 bits for customer ports (4096
> ports) and a current price of USD 20 per IPv4 address, this gives a
> cost of USD 1.25 per user for a fully redundant solution. For us it is
> even cheaper as we can recirculate existing address space.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:32 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet at consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es>> 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 <mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org> en
> nombre de baldur.norddahl at gmail.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org> en
> nombre de baldur.norddahl at gmail.com
> <mailto: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.
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190808/03e22549/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list