Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

[Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi () cisco com>]

Indeed MAP-E requires CPE replacement/upgrade cost.
But I would like to share JANOG Softwire WG Activity.
http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58856/apnic35-janog-softwire_1361559276.pdf

MAP-E already supported by 6 vendors,7 implementations.
It includes 2 open source(OpenWRT and ASAMAP) and 2 kernel(Linux 2.6.18 and NetBSD 4.0.1).

Regards,
Shishio

(2013/04/08 23:23), Jack Bates wrote:
> On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
> > address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
> > need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
>
> The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the point that 1 IPv4 Address per customer won't 
> accommodate user bases.
>
> The larger issue I think with MAP is CPE support requirements. There are ISP layouts that use bridging instead of CPE 
> routers (which was a long term design to support IPv6 without CPE replacements years later). CGN will handle the IPv4 
> issues in this setup just fine. Then there are those who have already deployed IPv6 capable CPEs with PPP or DHCP in 
> a router configuration which does not have MAP support. Given the variety of CPE vendors that end up getting deployed 
> over a longer period of time, it is easier and more cost effective to deploy CGN than try and replace all the CPEs.
>
> Given US$35/CPE, cost for replacements (not including deployment costs) for 20k users is US$700k. CGN gear suddenly 
> doesn't seem so costly.
>
> The only way I see it justifiable is if you haven't had IPv6 deployment in mind yet and you are having to replace 
> every CPE for IPv6 support anyways, you might go with a MAPS/IPv6 aware CPE which the customer pays for if they wish 
> IPv6 connectivity(or during whatever slow trickle replacement methods you utilize). While waiting for the slow 
> rollout, CGN would be an interim cost that would be acceptable. I'm not sure there is a reason for MAPS if you've 
> already deployed CGN, though.
>
> I am sure Verizon did a lot of cost analysis.
>
> Jack
>
> .