[afnog] XLAT646 deployment

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

The difference between the cost of the NAT64 and NAT44 is that NAT64 is able to make a much better efficient usage of the public IPv4 addresses and you're not restricted to a pre-allocated number of ports per customer.

See section 3.4 at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/


 

El 4/7/21 17:51, "afnog en nombre de Mark Tinka" <afnog-bounces at afnog.org en nombre de mark at tinka.africa> escribió:



    On 7/4/21 16:47, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

    > One of the key issues with 464xlat as with all transition mechanisms 
    > is the one of coordination. if you control the cpe then you use a cpe 
    > that embeds the transition technology of your choice. if you don't, 
    > either because the cpe belongs to to the consumer or because you buy 
    > retail devices based on a minimum set of interoperability requirements 
    > or cost, then your presentation will necessarily be driven by the 
    > minimum you are willing to support. Large MNOs and MSOs have a 
    > structural advantage when it comes to negotiating with CPE vendors. As 
    > you observe moving the CPE up the wire so that handoff is in the form 
    > of a device not performing the traditional cpe function, or an 
    > ethernet port, ont, or wireless bridge; provides you the opportunity 
    > to virtualize the functions of the cpe so they can be placed in 
    > something more accomidating like a linux vm.
    >
    > In the case of 464xlat if you cannot embed the clat in the cpe, you 
    > can place it upstream in a device you control. doing so effectively 
    > means dual stacking down to the CPE.  Your plat  still ends up having  
    > a stateful nat64 function which is very similar in cost to the 
    > stateful nat44 function. To me the question is not one of whether to 
    > dual stack or not (464xlat folks are clearly committed to providing 
    > dual stack services) but rather one of scope, where the middle box 
    > functions are expected to reside and who controls them.

    Agreed.

    If you are offering services via a vCPE in the core, then your only 
    limitation is whether the customer's devices support IPv6 or not. 
    Chances are they do, in which case, simply offering dual-stack IP 
    connectivity at the vCPE for terminating customers reduces the 
    requirement for 464XLAT altogether.

    But for as long as some resources on the web continue to be 
    single-stacked to IPv4, 464XLAT would not be entirely useless.

    Yes, the PLAT would need to hold state in the same way NAT44 CGN's 
    would, but the difference is that as more of the world activates IPv6 
    support for their network and services, you put less emphasis on the 
    PLAT (which cuts costs as well). With NAT44, your costs just keep rising 
    the longer you hold out against committing to IPv6.

    Mark.

    _______________________________________________
    afnog mailing list
    https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.