Re: MAP-E

[Jay Hanke <jayhanke () gmail com>]

Is there a summary presentation someplace laying out the options that
are active in the wild with some deployment stats?

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG
<nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> I understand that, but the inconvenient is the fix allocation of ports per client, and not all the clients use the 
> same number of ports. Every option has good and bad things.
>
>
>
> MAP is less efficient in terms of maximizing the “use” of the existing IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-bounces () nanog org en nombre de baldur.norddahl () 
> gmail com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi
>
>
>
> My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid the expense and operative nightmare of 
> having to run a redundant NAT server setup with thousands of users. MAP is the only alternative that avoids a 
> provider run NAT server.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:38 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> Ask the vendor to support RFC8585.
>
>
>
> Also, you can do it with OpenWRT.
>
>
>
> I think 464XLAT is a better option and both of them are supported by OpenWRT.
>
>
>
> You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 14:20, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-bounces () nanog org en nombre de baldur.norddahl () 
> gmail com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> Are there any known public deployments of MAP-E? What about CPE routers with support?
>
>
>
> The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all 
> the options, MAP-E appears to be the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a packet and route it as 
> normal. No need to invest in anything as our core routers can already do that. No worries about scale.
>
>
>
> BUT - our current CPE has zero support. We are too small that they will make this feature just for us, so I need to 
> convince them there is going to be a demand. Alternatively I need to find a different CPE vendor that has MAP-E 
> support, but are there any?
>
>
>
> What is holding MAP-E back?  In my view MAP-E could be the end game for IPv4. Customers get full IPv6 and enough of 
> IPv4 to be somewhat compatible. The ISP networks are not forced to do a lot of processing such as CGN otherwise 
> requires.
>
>
>
> I read some posts from Japan where users are reporting a deployment of MAP-E. Anyone know about that?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.