Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:25 AM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> A few facts:
>
>
>
> 464XLAT is the must in MBB just because Android and iOS do not support the
> other 4 mechanisms. Nothing to discuss.
>
>
>
> FBB effectively has the choice from DS-Lite->MAP->464XLAT.
> DS-Lite because it is supported by the majority of CPEs. MAP because it is
> the best technically. 464XLAT because it has synergy with Mobile but
> typically Carrier’s MBB and FBB departments are different with different
> budgets.
>
> 1.       Lw4o6 has a very limited number of deployments.
>
> 2.       RFC 8585 is not very old (May 2019). Basement RFC 7084 did not
> request anything, except DS-Lite. Hence, the majority of FBB CPEs do not
> support anything else because Retail did follow RFC 7084 only.
> Lee Howard has published it here
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OAoush6gNQYv1gkPVGmUdUCWgBQ/.
> It has the reference to Excel on GoogleDoc. DS-lite was leading FBB in 2017
> that is predictable.
> DS-Lite market share is the biggest but should only decline in %.
>
> 3.       MAP-E/T needs mapping IPv4:port_range to IPv6 which results in
> the requirement of the limited number of big blocks (not XY of /24). It is
> a luxury for many Carriers. MAP is not much bigger than Lw4o6, but it has
> the potential because of technical advantages.
>
> The excel would give you the split for 2017. I do not know the exact split
> between these 3 for now.
>
>
Related to MAP deployment issues and lessons learned

https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/78-ripe82-yanodd-mape.pdf

>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Lorenzo
> Colitti
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 24, 2021 5:26 AM
> *To:* v6ops@ietf.org WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement
> first?
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Is there any data on what IPv4aaS transition mechanisms are deployed by
> ISPs today? I was approached by a router vendor asking me "how they should
> provide IPv6-only" and I was looking for data on which mechanisms are most
> common.
>
>
>
> Official IETF guidance in RFC 8585 and 8026 is "do all of them and let
> ISPs decide, have a nice day", but that's not very helpful to a development
> team with finite engineering resources and low margins. In particular, it's
> not helpful to vendors of routers that are updatable and that can thus
> credibly claim that they can deliver other mechanisms via software update.
> Those vendors could reasonably argue that it's better for everyone if they
> launch the most common mechanism(s) first, and then deliver the others in
> software updates.
>
>
>
> It seems like reasonable implementation guidance would be to request
> OPTION_S46_PRIORITY and parse it, but only initially implement one or two
> of the mechanisms and leave the others for a future release. If a router
> did this, what mechanisms should it implement first? MAP-E?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lorenzo
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>