Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Monday, July 4, 2016, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:

> On 2016-07-04 20:50, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> Always so funny how people love talking how great MAP scales, yet it has
> never been deployed at scale. 464XLAT and ds-lite have been deployed at
> real scale, so has 6RD.
>
> MAP is like beta max. Technically great, but reality is poor.
>
>
> The two MAP RFCs are dated July 2015 just one year old. The world does not
> move that fast and especially not "large deployments".
>
> 6RD is dated August 2010
> DS-LITE is dated August 2011
> 464XLAT is dated April 2013
Funny thing about that is that 464XLAT IETF work started after MAP and
finshed before MAP, despite MAP being the path of the true believers.

Seems MAP running code has been around for 3 years

https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/136-ripe_20_dollar_cgn.pdf



> Someone from Comcast just said at the recent RIPE conference in Copenhagen
> that they are considering MAP. Now Comcast were also one the larger 6RD
> deployments. Why the switch? Because those technologies do not solve the
> same problem.
No, comcast never did a production deployment of 6RD. I was on their beta
6RD many moons ago. Not good.


> 6RD is a short term technology fix to get some IPv6 out to the customers
> quickly in a network that is otherwise pure IPv4.
>
> MAP is a long term solution to deliver some IPv4 in a world where IPv4 is
> deprecated and IPv6 is the main protocol. It is meant to deployed in a
> network that is otherwise pure IPv6, the exact opposite to 6RD.
>
> The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, but
> both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a lack of
> control as seen from the end user point of view (no port forwarding etc).
>
> I for one is going to continue to demand that my vendors implement MAP, so
> I do not have to pay for a carrier NAT solution that always is going to be
> in need of upgrade, will be under DDoS attack every tuesday and just
> plainly is not a necessary element in the network. MAP on the other hand is
> stateless and it is very simple to tack on an encapsulating header. Any
> router that can do GRE should also be able to do MAP.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur

I look forward to your deployment report.

Sometimes folks underestimate the complexity of the dhcpv6 coordination to
assign ports (state) or overstate the IPv4 efficiency in MAP, but i am sure
you have that figured out and accounted.

My point , which i believe is a statement of fact, is that there are MAP
fans, and no deployments at scale to demonstrate real world success.

I am sure that will change, someone will deploy MAP at scale

CB