[180819] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Wed Jun 10 18:00:56 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <C26ABA0F2E16624EA737DB4674DC05AB167ADAB2@mail.baec.local>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:47:23 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Warren <nwarren@barryelectric.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Nicholas Warren <nwarren@barryelectric.com>
wrote:
> Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience,
> We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the ground
> up. I was hoping I could get an opinion, or two, on how everyone feels
> about 464XLAT. I saw what everyone was saying about it in the 'Android
> doesn't support DHCPv6' discussion, but what about in the wireline side of
> things? The main reason we are even considering 464XLAT as opposed to
> dual-stack (the latter is, in my ignorant opinion, the better option.) is
> the fear of IPv4 depletion that we think might hit ARIN between now and the
> start of next year; causing us to pay a premium for IPv4 in the gray
> market. So I guess the real question here would be: is our fear real, or is
> it just bug on the wall? If our fear is real, what should we implement so
> that our users can still get to the v4 internet, are we even thinking
> soberly by suggesting 464XLAT?
> Thanks,
> - Nich
>
>
Yes, your fears about IPv4 are correct.
If you have a look at ARIN PPML lately, you can see some pretty intense
"discussion" about companies exporting ARIN addresses to CCNIC and so on.
As a greenfield, you should definitely be focused on IPv6-only to the edge
solutions. DS-lite, MAP-E, and 464XLAT come to mind.
DS-lite is the oldest and most common in wireline. 464XLAT is more common
in mobile. MAP-E and MAP-T have not yet been deployed at the same scale as
DS-lite and 464XLAT yet AFAIK, not sure if they will be.
You could also simply do dual-stack with private space and CGN to the end
user using RFC1918 (10.0.0.0/8, 100.64.0.0/10)
Regards,
CB
