[195999] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Tue Sep 26 16:51:06 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:50:52 -0400
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: Fredrik Sallinen <fredrik.sallinen@gmail.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAGLZPFc_BBQ6e-Y-JLun=fBMyOr-yA4fAm7k4yWfdERGRRqdA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9/23/17, 7:14 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Fredrik Sallinen"
<nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of fredrik.sallinen@gmail.com> wrote:
>Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile
>networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?
Should work fine in landline networks, but (as Jordi says) it=E2=80=99s hard to
find support in retail CPE your customers are likely to own. Same is true
for MAP-T and MAP-E.
If anyone knows of retail CPE supporting any of those, or if you=E2=80=99re a
gateway vendor selling those, let me know, I=E2=80=99m interested.
Lee
>
>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
>>networks (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
>>problem if you want to go to lw4o6, MAP, etc. In general, newer
>>transition mechanisms, 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://datatracker.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 the 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.
>>
>>=20
>>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.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.
>>
>> > 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
>>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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>NAT64
>> so it still will work for most things.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --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
>>confidential. 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 considered 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 prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>>offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>>communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>
