Re: [v6ops] FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT

we hope y'all are looking forward to Po4 as much as we are.

On 2024-03-11 04:00, Daryll Swer wrote:
>
>     - PLAT is 30% more expensive than NAT44 (look to any vendor for
>     scalability numbers)
>
> 464xlat is stateful, isn't it? To my understanding, MAP-T is “mostly 
> stateless”, but I have only heard of MAP-T in a very limited number of 
> SPs around the world. MAP-T on end-devices will probably never happen.
>
>     DHCP absence on the most popular OS would still block IPv6
>     progress in the Enterprise.
>
> If you read the past email threads on this mailing list, there was an 
> extensive (and aggressive) debate on DHCPv6 support issues on client 
> devices, with me included in that discussion. But alas, the SLAAC 
> apologists still thinks DHCPv6 is anti-IPv6.
>
> I've largely stopped pushing enterprise folks I know of, to IPv6, 
> nobody wants to waste their resources on SLAAC hacks (which the SLAAC 
> apologists claims is superior to DHCPv6) for logging/compliances etc. 
> Life's so much simpler as an ISP, ia_na + static /56 or /48 ia_pd to 
> the Customer Edge Router, RADIUS-based AAA/Logging of the prefix, 
> problem solved. State sync is the only problem left, but, that can be 
> solved using ISC Kea as someone pointed out before, or opt for an 
> opinionated vendor stack, vendors have their own state sync mechanism 
> for DHCPv6.
>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com 
> <https://mailtrack.io/l/5dcb8586407ba280cf773710505bb808535a7647?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=442d04c8d2b1a9db>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 12:19, Vasilenko Eduard 
> <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>     IPv6-mostly looks good because it permits to have IPv6-only and
>     IPv4-only on the same subnet. It is a smooth transition.
>
>     But "CLAT" means that somewhere should be PLAT:
>     - double NAT translation for IPv4 to IPv4 traffic -> definitely
>     more difficult to troubleshoot.
>     - PLAT is 30% more expensive than NAT44 (look to any vendor for
>     scalability numbers)
>
>     IMHO: IPv6-mostly would not be enough incentive to improve
>     Enterprise miserable IPv6 adoption.
>     DHCP absence on the most popular OS would still block IPv6
>     progress in the Enterprise.
>
>     Eduard
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ole Troan
>     Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 16:29
>     To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
>     Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas@microsoft.com>
>     Subject: Re: [v6ops] FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT
>
>     >> I’m also a fan of IPv6-mostly.
>     >> Isn’t it too early to state that it has lower operational cost
>     than dual-stack (or IPv4 only)?
>     >
>     > It may be for people who haven't deployed it yet.
>
>     Definitely. That was my point. It “may be”. We don’t quite know yet.
>
>     >
>     >> What I mostly(sic) like about it, is that it provides a clearer
>     path towards IPv6 only than dual stack.
>     >>
>     >> But I would imagine at least for the short term there are going
>     to be quite a few operational wrinkles to sort out.
>     >
>     > When you find a new technology which doesn't have that problem,
>     please
>     > let me know ;)
>
>     Of course not. It’s an interesting technology. My point was to not
>     oversell it. It has the _potential_ to become a good option.
>
>
>     >
>     >> It’s likely harder to troubleshoot IPv4 problems too.
>     >
>     > It's not my experience. Actually troubleshooting is much easier.
>     > For IPv6-only devices it's just one protocol. For dual-stack
>     devices
>     > nothing has changed compared to a dual-stack setup.
>
>     Cool! I would just imagine get a few issues with PMTUD discovery,
>     traceroute not working and so on.
>
>
>     >
>     >> And I don’t think it even works on my DHCPv6 single address
>     assigned network at all (yet to be tested).
>     >
>     > Nor would IPv6-only.
>
>     Why not?
>
>
>     > When you made the decision to assign a single IPv6 address per
>     device,
>     > I assume you did evaluate pros and cons.
>     > It doesn't make the  designs which are incompatible with your
>     choice bad ones.
>
>     IPv6 mostly in itself is not incompatible with a single IPv6 address.
>     That’s an implementation choice. I haven’t had time to test
>     implementations yet.
>     Documentation isn’t exactly where Apple shines, but interesting to
>     see where Microsoft lands on this one.
>
>     Best regards,
>     Ole
>
>
>     >
>     >>
>     >>> On 8 Mar 2024, at 04:52, Lorenzo Colitti
>     <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> Great to hear! I think this means that all the major platforms
>     will support the "IPv6-mostly" operational model that v6ops has
>     been working on for the past few years. That's super important,
>     because it means that any network can use this model with
>     confidence that all their clients will work.
>     >>>
>     >>> Hopefully this will really help adoption of this model in
>     enterprise networks. Dual-stack is expensive to operate, but if
>     IPv6-only works, then any enterprise that wants to support IPv6 in
>     some form can simply skip directly from IPv4-only to IPv6-mostly
>     without having to worry about the costs of dual-stack at all.
>     >>>
>     >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 5:05 AM Tommy Jensen
>     <Jensen.Thomas=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>     >>> Good day v6ops,
>     >>>
>     >>> As a general IPv6 FYI, I'll share Windows' announcement to bring
>     >>> CLAT to general networking interfaces which went live today:
>     >>>
>     https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/networking-blog/windows-11-pl
>     >>> ans-to-expand-clat-support/ba-p/4078173
>     >>>
>     >>> Looking forward to seeing everyone in Brisbane and talking
>     about CLAT recommendations, the draft Jen and I are coauthoring,
>     as Windows will be an implementor!
>     >>>
>     >>> Thanks,
>     >>> Tommy
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> v6ops mailing list
>     >>> v6ops@ietf.org
>     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> v6ops mailing list
>     >>> v6ops@ietf.org
>     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> v6ops mailing list
>     >> v6ops@ietf.org
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Cheers, Jen Linkova
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops