[195960] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fredrik Sallinen)
Sat Sep 23 07:15:05 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <19206460-B77B-4E74-BBDD-084D438228C5@consulintel.es>
From: Fredrik Sallinen <fredrik.sallinen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 14:44:07 +0330
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile
networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:28 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> Fully agree, 464XLAT is the way to go.
>
> We have tested this in many IPv6-only access deployments, non-cellular ne=
tworks (cellular is well tested by T-Mobile and others, that have got it in=
production for years).
>
> We always have the issue of the CPEs support, but this is the same proble=
m if you want to go to lw4o6, MAP, etc. In general, newer transition mechan=
isms, aren=E2=80=99t well supported.
>
> So, you either use OpenWRT if you can re-flash the CPEs, or you push your=
vendors to make sure they provide a firmware upgrade.
>
> This is the reason I started to work on an update of the RFC7084 (https:/=
/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/ and https://datatra=
cker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/) and see also t=
he related discussion in v6ops.
>
> Also, I run a panel with CPE vendors in the last week APNIC meeting, and =
the interesting thing is that they confirmed there is no any technical issu=
e to support those (hardware is ok), and they have already developed it, ju=
st waiting for customers to ask for it.
>
> https://conference.apnic.net/44/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof-discussion-w=
ith-ipv6-ce-vendors
>
> I will compile a report out of this panel ASAP.
>
> So please, keep pushing your vendors for it!
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> en nombre de Brock Tice <brock@bmwl.c=
o>
> 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 ge=
t
> or buy any more. We have been testing for a while.
>
> > Shall I go for IPv6-only deployment or dual stack?
>
> 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.
>
> > How to identify address CPE and legacy application issues?
>
> Legacy application issues can be solved (for the most part) with
> 464XLAT, which also solves IP-literal-in-HTML problems. You need PLAT=
at
> the core and CLAT at the client. Unfortunately so far the only good w=
ay
> we've found to do CLAT is OpenWRT on the CPE or router. We are gettin=
g
> ready to bundle Linksys routers flashed with OpenWRT.
>
> 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 sti=
ll
> work as they are fully functional on v6.
>
> We have tested this in my home and at my office with IPv6-only
> VLANs/wireless SSIDs, mostly without a hitch.
>
> If you run this setup without the CLAT on the client side you get NAT=
64
> so it still will work for most things.
>
> I would be very, very happy if larger ISPs would put pressure on rout=
er
> 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.
>
> --Brock
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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 c=
onfidential. 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 co=
nsidered 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 prohi=
bited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the orig=
inal sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
