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

[Ben Plimpton <bplimp () gmail com>]

BR support is maturing nicely.  A few other vendors with implementations:
        Arista - https://www.arista.com/en/support/toi/eos-4-24-0f/14495-map-t-border-relay 
        Nokia - https://infocenter.nokia.com/public/7750SR140R4/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.sr.msisa%2Fhtml%2Fnat.html
        Netgate/TNSR - https://docs.netgate.com/tnsr/en/latest/map/index.html

Thx,
Ben

> On Mar 25, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> 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