MAP-T in production

Wed Jul 22 22:04:55 UTC 2020

The comparison between MAP-T and 464XLAT is not just state.

With 464XLAT you can have more subscribers (almost unlimited) per IP address, without a limitation on the number of ports, so you save a lot of money in addresses.

And of course, a limited number of ports in MAP-T means troubles for customers, so help desk cost.

If you have a network with both cellular and wireline, clearly 464XLAT is the only solution to have a single transition mechanism.

I've been working a lot with CPE providers (see RFC8585), and I believe that 464XLAT is getting more support.

I'm now involve in a 25.000.000 subscribers 464XLAT deployment project (DSL, GPON and cellular) ... just slowed down because the Covid-19 situation,  but a small test best passed all the "evil" testing that we tried.

See also RFC8683.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 22/7/20 23:32, "NANOG en nombre de Brandon Martin" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de lists.nanog at monmotha.net> escribió:

    On 7/22/20 5:15 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
    > Has anyone implemented a MAP-T solution in production? I am looking for feedback on this as a deployment strategy for an IPv6 only core design. My concern is MAP-T CE stability and overhead on the network. The BR will have to do overloaded NAT anyway to access IPv4 only resources. The idea being that when IPv4 is no longer needed, this will be a quicker “clean-up” project than a dual-stack solution.
    > 
    > I have reviewed Jordan Gotlieb’s presentation from Charter and would love to hear if this is still in use at Charter or if was ever fully implemented and the experiences)
    > 
    > I’d love any real life examples and success/failure stories.

    I'd love to hear about this (or MAP-E, or lw4o6) as well especially with 
    regard to CPE support.  My preferred CPE vendor keeps punting on it 
    (though they do claim to support 464XLAT), and I'd really like something 
    to point them to that will show them it's a "real thing".  Getting rid 
    of state at the CGN as is (or can be, at least) necessary with 464XLAT 
    seems like a real boon while placing minimal additional burden on the CPE.

    -- 
    Brandon Martin

**********************************************
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.