[195879] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
Wed Sep 20 08:43:49 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:58:38 -0300
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <b5302ffe-b71b-4fe8-e28a-9363de441590@bmwl.co>
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Fully agree, 464XLAT is the way to go.
We have tested this in many IPv6-only access deployments, non-cellular netw=
orks (cellular is well tested by T-Mobile and others, that have got it in p=
roduction for years).
We always have the issue of the CPEs support, but this is the same problem =
if you want to go to lw4o6, MAP, etc. In general, newer transition mechanis=
ms, aren=E2=80=99t well supported.
So, you either use OpenWRT if you can re-flash the CPEs, or you push your v=
endors to make sure they provide a firmware upgrade.
This is the reason I started to work on an update of the RFC7084 (https://d=
atatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/ and https://datatrack=
er.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/) and see also the=
related discussion in v6ops.
Also, I run a panel with CPE vendors in the last week APNIC meeting, and th=
e interesting thing is that they confirmed there is no any technical issue =
to support those (hardware is ok), and they have already developed it, just=
waiting for customers to ask for it.
https://conference.apnic.net/44/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof-discussion-wit=
h-ipv6-ce-vendors
I will compile a report out of this panel ASAP.
So please, keep pushing your vendors for it!
Regards,
Jordi
=20
-----Mensaje original-----
De: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> en nombre de Brock Tice <brock@bmwl.co>
Responder a: <brock@bmwl.co>
Fecha: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017, 17:14
Para: Fredrik Sallinen <fredrik.sallinen@gmail.com>
CC: <nanog@nanog.org>
Asunto: Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
We are small but we are just about out of IPv4 and aren't going to get
or buy any more. We have been testing for a while.
=20
> Shall I go for IPv6-only deployment or dual stack?
=20
You should plan for adding customers eventually that are IPv6-only,
unless you have all the v4 you will ever need, and you will need to
reserve IPv4 address blocks for translation.
=20
> How to identify address CPE and legacy application issues?
=20
Legacy application issues can be solved (for the most part) with
464XLAT, which also solves IP-literal-in-HTML problems. You need PLAT a=
t
the core and CLAT at the client. Unfortunately so far the only good way
we've found to do CLAT is OpenWRT on the CPE or router. We are getting
ready to bundle Linksys routers flashed with OpenWRT.
=20
For PLAT at the core we are running jool. It's actually quite simple to
set up and we are currently using OSPF to do anycast, but we will
probably be migrating to a single set of HA servers in the core. The
good news is that even if it goes down, Netflix and Facebook will still
work as they are fully functional on v6.
=20
We have tested this in my home and at my office with IPv6-only
VLANs/wireless SSIDs, mostly without a hitch.
=20
If you run this setup without the CLAT on the client side you get NAT64
so it still will work for most things.
=20
I would be very, very happy if larger ISPs would put pressure on router
manufacturers to support CLAT, we have no clout. I would also love to
hear if any of this is stupid or if there's a better way.
=20
--Brock
=20
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con=
fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i=
ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, =
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p=
artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons=
idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t=
hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in=
formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi=
ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin=
al sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
