MAP-E

Thu Aug 8 22:10:48 UTC 2019

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 5:17 AM Lee Howard <lee.howard at retevia.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
NAT64 / 464xlat / MAP all lend themselves well to regionalization / edge
distribution. That’s how i roll 464xlat. Either with anycast of the well
know prefix or dns64 or “dns view” base segmentation.

Asking for a single box to do a 100g of nat state may be the wrong
question.

Worth noting, Yandex, a big shop, sponsored adding 464xlat CLAT to FreeBSD

https://www.freebsd.org/releases/11.3R/relnotes.html#network-general

>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 18:24, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <
> nanog-bounces at nanog.org en nombre de 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> 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.
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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/20190809/c08b30ee/attachment.html>