RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

The best MAP discussion (really rich in details) is from Richard Patterson.
Sky has implemented green field FBB in Italy.
He did many presentations in different places. This one should be looked from 00:37 to 1:09 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-ipv6-only-networks

The absence of logs is a really big advantage.
But where to get big enough IPv4 address space for MAP?

XLAT464 would win anyway because it is the only IPv4aaS translation available on a smartphone.

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [mailto:rajiva () cisco com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 12:44 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; Jared Brown <nanog-isp () mail com>; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

FWIW, MAP has been deployed by few operators (in at least 3 continents that I am aware of).

Charter communications is one of the public references (see NANOG preso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w).

MAP (CPE function) has been supported in OpenWRT software (as well as many CPE vendor implementations) for few years 
now; MAP (BR function) has been supported by few vendors including Cisco (in IOS-XE and XR).

Cheers,
Rajiv 

https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata_owrt18_6/map-t
https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/map

 

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rajiva=cisco.com () nanog org> on behalf of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM
To: Jared Brown <nanog-isp () mail com>, "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

    Hi Jared,
    Theoretically, MAP is better. But 

    1. Nobody has implemented it for the router.
    The code for the CGNAT engine gives the same cost/performance.
    No promised advantage from potentially stateless protocol.

    2.MAP needs much bigger address space (not everybody has) because:
    a) powered-off subscribers consume their blocks anyway
    b) it is not possible to add "on the fly" additional 64 ports to the particular subscriber that abuse some Apple 
application (and go to 1k ports consumption) that may drive far above any reasonable limit of ports per subs.
    Design should block a big enough number of UDP/TCP ports for every subs (even most silent/conservative).

    Ed/
    -----Original Message-----
    From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org] On Behalf Of Jared Brown
    Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:49 PM
    To: nanog () nanog org
    Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

    Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have 
a question regarding this.

    Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the provider side?

    Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE, vendor support, or something else?


    NANOG 2017
    Mapping of Address and Port using Translation MAP T: Deployment at Charter Communications 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w


    - Jared