Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>]

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<mailto: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<mailto:mel () beckman org>>
Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org<mailto:Lee () asgard org>>
Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore () atcnetworks net<mailto:jmoore () atcnetworks net>>, nanog () nanog org<mailto: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<mailto:Lee () asgard org>> wrote:
>
> Some thoughts. . .
>
> ^3Native dual-stack^2 is ^3native IPv4 and native IPv6.^2
>
> ^3Dual-stack^2 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 can^1t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that^1s 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 doesn^1t require updates to the home gateway. The
> more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
>
> Think about how you^1ll position it to customers. It^1s difficult to change
> a customer^1s 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. Don^1t
> buy anything you can^1t manage over IPv6, including servers and
> applications. Sorry, vendor, I can^1t buy your cluster, I don^1t 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<mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org> on behalf of jmoore () atcnetworks net<mailto: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