Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[andrew <andrew () ethernaut io>]

Ah, thanks.  I was considering this from a CE only perspective.


-andrew-------- Original message --------
From: Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> 
Date: 07/06/2015  10:49 AM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: andrew <andrew () ethernaut io> 
Cc: Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>, Josh Moore <jmoore () atcnetworks net>, nanog () nanog org 
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion 


MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure  because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented 
LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes. 




-mel via cell


On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <andrew () ethernaut io> wrote:






Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6?
-------- Original message --------

From: Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> 

Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00) 

To: Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> 

Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore () atcnetworks net>,
nanog () nanog org 

Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion 




And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up!



-mel beckman



> On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote:

>

> Some thoughts. . .

>

> ³Native dual-stack² is ³native IPv4 and native IPv6.²

>

> ³Dual-stack² might be native, or might by ³native IPv6 plus IPv4 address

> sharing.²

>

> Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are

> operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them

> close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same

> path. You can¹t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that¹s not the

> end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is

> the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.

>

> Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these.

> CGN is the only one that doesn¹t require updates to the home gateway. The

> more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.

>

> Think about how you¹ll position it to customers. It¹s difficult to change

> a customer¹s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer

> profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off

> buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4

> addresses to give you time; contact a broker.

>

> You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don¹t

> buy anything you can¹t manage over IPv6, including servers and

> applications. Sorry, vendor, I can¹t buy your cluster, I don¹t have the

> IPv4 address space to provision it.

>

> Lee

>

> On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore"

> <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of
jmoore () atcnetworks net> wrote:

>

> > Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the

> > CPE.

> > Consider the following:

> >

> > An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack

> > with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow

> > regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best

> > practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If

> > this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help

> > with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still

> > need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution

> > but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without

> > NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and

> > efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this:

> > What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what

> > is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy

> > and goal be?

> >

> > Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and

> > while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there;

> > I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate

> > issue: IPv4 depletion.

> >

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Joshua Moore

> > Network Engineer

> > ATC Broadband

> > 912.632.3161

>

>