nanog mailing list archives

Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE


From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:57:02 -0700

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:50 AM Philip Loenneker <
Philip.Loenneker () tasmanet com au> wrote:

Hi Tom,



This article is now 11 months old, but may be of interest to you:

https://blog.apnic.net/2017/11/09/ce-vendors-share-thoughts-ipv6-support/



Some quotes:

   - The major issue is the lack of support provided by CE vendors for
   both older (DS-Lite, lw4o6), and newer (464XLAT, MAP T/E) transition
   mechanisms. Some vendors provide it ‘on-demand’ for big customers, but
   small and medium ISPs don’t have the same purchasing capability, creating a
   big issue for deployment.
   - All panellists said their service providers’ products supported
   lw4o6, MAP-E/T, and 464XLAT, but because of the lack of support for these
   mechanisms in RFC7084, it is not standard in retail CE.
   - There are no new hardware requirements that will exclude vendors
   supporting all these transitions mechanisms — it is really a matter of very
   few kilobytes.
   - The panel agreed that minimum orders were not considered when
   implementing these mechanisms. For them, the fact is that IPv6 needs to be
   implemented, and there is a need to support new transition mechanisms and
   support service providers and retail users. Also, there is a need for
   products to pass some certification requirements (again the idea of
   RFC7084-bis is strongly supported by the panellists).



Telstra did a presentation as AusNOG back in September discussing their
IPv6 implementation which was really great to see. They have their own
branded CPEs with 464XLAT. Unfortunately I don’t think there is a video of
it, only a rather short slide deck. You can see it here:


https://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-2018/presentations/2.8_David_Woolley_AusNOG2018.pdf



I have asked several vendors we deal with about the newer technologies
such as 464XLAT, and have had some responses indicating they will
investigate internally, however we have not made much progress yet. One
vendor suggested their device supports NAT46 and NAT64 so may support
464XLAT, but since it is incidental rather than an official feature, it may
not support the full CLAT requirements. I have been meaning to do some
tests but haven’t had a chance yet. It is also a higher price point than
our current CPEs.



I have spoken to people who have looked into options such as OpenWRT
(which supports several of these technolgoies), however the R&D and ongoing
support is a significant roadblock to overcome.



I would like to hear how others are implementing these transition
technologies.




Just my own personal musing below

There several mobile providers that planning to use 5G/4G for home
broadband.  Some are going to focus on urban areas while others will focus
on rural areas.

My expectation is that that these mobile providers will bring their
existing mobile approach to the wireless home broadband space.  That said,
i believe 464XLAT specifically will be used in home router deployments that
will have a mobile modem.  These devices are likely to look more like home
gateways than existing mobile  hotspot pucks.

Regards,

Philip





*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> *On Behalf Of *Tom Ammon
*Sent:* Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:59 PM
*To:* NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
*Subject:* new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE



Are there any CPE vendors providing MAP-T features yet? I'm working on
rolling v6 to residential subscribers and am trying to understand what the
landscape looks like on the CPE side, for MAP-T specifically.



What about 464XLAT on a CPE - is that a thing? I know that 464XLAT has
been running for a while on some mobile provider networks, but are there
any vendors out there with a decent/mature CLAT implementation in a CPE
product that is ready to buy right now?



Thanks,

Tom



--


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ammon
M: (801) 784-2628
thomasammon () gmail com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: