[181848] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Mon Jul 6 11:59:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:58:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB027FCB9A52562A2F0B8A7F9C0930@BY2PR07MB027.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Yes. But the MPLS nodes must all connect via IPv4.
-mel via cell
On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoor=
e@atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
You can still carry the v6 NLRIs in MP-BGP though right?
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M
From: Mel Beckman [mailto:mel@beckman.org]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:49 AM
To: andrew
Cc: Lee Howard; Josh Moore; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure beca=
use neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6=
prefixes.
-mel via cell
On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <andrew@ethernaut.io<mailto:andrew@ether=
naut.io>> wrote:
Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support=
for IP6?
-------- Original message --------
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>>
Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>>
Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>>, nan=
og@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finish=
ed up!
-mel beckman
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.=
org>> wrote:
>
> Some thoughts. . .
>
> ^3Native dual-stack^2 is ^3native IPv4 and native IPv6.^2
>
> ^3Dual-stack^2 might be native, or might by ^3native IPv6 plus IPv4 addre=
ss
> sharing.^2
>
> Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are
> operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them
> close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same
> path. You can^1t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that^1s not th=
e
> end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is
> the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.
>
> Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these.
> CGN is the only one that doesn^1t require updates to the home gateway. Th=
e
> more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
>
> Think about how you^1ll position it to customers. It^1s difficult to chan=
ge
> a customer^1s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longe=
r
> profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off
> buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4
> addresses to give you time; contact a broker.
>
> You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don^1=
t
> buy anything you can^1t manage over IPv6, including servers and
> applications. Sorry, vendor, I can^1t buy your cluster, I don^1t have the
> IPv4 address space to provision it.
>
> Lee
>
> On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore"
> <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of jmo=
ore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
>
>> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the
>> CPE.
>> Consider the following:
>>
>> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack
>> with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow
>> regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best
>> practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. I=
f
>> this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help
>> with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would stil=
l
>> need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution
>> but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without
>> NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and
>> efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this=
:
>> What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what
>> is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy
>> and goal be?
>>
>> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and
>> while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there=
;
>> I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediat=
e
>> issue: IPv4 depletion.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Joshua Moore
>> Network Engineer
>> ATC Broadband
>> 912.632.3161
>
>
