[181103] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Greenfield ISP (In January)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicholas Warren)
Tue Jun 16 08:52:08 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Nicholas Warren <nwarren@barryelectric.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:51:59 +0000
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Does anyone beside Cisco do MAP? Brocade, Juniper, Huawei?
Thank you,
- Nich Warren
-----Original Message-----
From: Tore Anderson [mailto:tore@fud.no]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 12:15 AM
To: Baldur Norddahl
Cc: Nicholas Warren; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)
* Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
> The high tech solution is stuff like MAP where you move the cost out=20
> to the CPE. But then you need to control the CPE - if you have that=20
> then great. You would still want to sell a non-NAT (and MAP is NAT) to=20
> users that require a public IPv4 address, so you still need to go dual=20
> stack or use some tunnelling for that.
Hi Baldur,
MAP is *not* NAT; that's what's so neat about it. The users do get a public=
IPv4 address (or prefix!) routed to their CPE's WAN interface, towards whi=
ch they can accept inbound unsolicited connections.
The public IPv4 address could be port-restricted if the operator wants addr=
ess sharing, but it does not have to be. You could do both at the same time=
, e.g., giving your "premium" users a /32 or /28, while the standard subscr=
iption includes a /32 with 4k ports.
I will grant you that MAP-T performs NAT (i.e., protocol translation) inter=
nally, but the translations that happens when a packet enters the MAP domai=
n are reversed when it exits. So the IPv4 addresses are transparent end-to-=
end.
MAP-E (and lw4o6 for that matter), on the other hand, has no form of NAT an=
ywhere. (Unless you count the NAPT44 that sits between the subscriber's RFC=
1918 LAN segment and the CPE's WAN interface, but that's not exactly someth=
ing that's unique to MAP.)
Nicholas: If I were you, before going down the 464XLAT route, I'd first loo=
k closely at these technologies, in the order given:
1) MAP (because it is fully stateless)
2) lw4o6 (because it is mostly stateless, i.e., no session tracking)
3) DS-Lite (which, like 464XLAT, is stateful, but you'll have way more
CPEs to choose from than with 464XLAT, which is mostly for mobile)
Tore
