Mailing List Archive

On 2014-12-05 14:30, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I
> know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested
> to hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight
> 4over6 (not just trials though, but actual commercial services)

There is a short question: does user user base have gamers?

If yes, then you won't be happy with the amount of helpdesk calls when
going that route. (and that is ignoring all the P2P users out there)

Quake used to be a great alert system for ISPs "there is latency!!!!" ;)

Greets,
Jeroen

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
>
> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I know
> of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to hear
> about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6 (not just
> trials though, but actual commercial services)

rhtec used to have a teaser offer which was IPv6-Only (no IPv4 at
all) over T-DSL access, first 3 GBytes in each month free. Nice to
have when your other ISP (over the same T-DSL access, too) was IPv4
only at that time. And when you found out how to circumvent RFC
2516 chapter 9 third sentence (T- used a limit of one session per
MAC).

3GB was a lot back then - it's been a few years; I had it active at
least 2007 if not earlier.

But I guess this sort of access is not what you had in mind...

-is

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:

> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I know
> of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to hear
> about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6 (not
> just trials though, but actual commercial services)
>

Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012. They
use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be just a
particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G
up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE.

On 12/05/2014 04:32 PM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
> But I guess this sort of access is not what you had in mind... -is

you're right :)
cheers,
Yannis

On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
> <mailto:dez@otenet.gr>> wrote:
>
> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential
> services? I know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd
> be more interested to hear about network operators deploying
> either MAP or lightweight 4over6 (not just trials though, but
> actual commercial services)
>
>
> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012.
> They use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be
> just a particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to
> 1G down / 1G up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary
> CPE.

I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.

We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The problem is that our management
prefers "proven" solutions (i.e deployed by other ISPs) and the only
proven solutions I'm aware of are full blown CGN solutions. That's why I
was trying to find commercially deployed cases based on either MAP or
lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be of value if I could prove that,
for example, DS-lite is not being deployed either :)

cheers,
Yannis

They deployed 6rd as well, but not to that many users. I think it was not
turned on by default or something.

Another IPv6-only service here in Japan is "v6 plus", which I believe is a
derivative of MAP but with proprietary bits for authentication purposes.
(The reason why IPv6-over-IPv4 is used here is because the fiber
incumbent, NTT, provides a network that's capable of either PPPoE or native
IPv6, but not IPv4; I assume that this unbundling situation requires
authentication in a way that a single-ISP deployment does not.) That
service uses shared IPv4 addressing and requires either an NTT CPE or a
particular buffalo CPE. I don't think this service is very common /
successul.

It won't be easy to prove that DS-Lite is not being deployed, because there
are some fairly large deployments in Germany (Kabel Deutschland and
Unitymedia, both owned by Liberty Global).

If what you're planning to deploy is MAP with a full IPv4 address per user,
then that's proven, because Softbank is doing it. I'm not aware of any
substantial deployments of MAP with shared addressing.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:

> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I
>> know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to
>> hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6
>> (not just trials though, but actual commercial services)
>>
>
> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012. They
> use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be just a
> particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G
> up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE.
>
>
> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.
>
> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The problem is that our management prefers
> "proven" solutions (i.e deployed by other ISPs) and the only proven
> solutions I'm aware of are full blown CGN solutions. That's why I was
> trying to find commercially deployed cases based on either MAP or lw4o6.
> Alternatively, It would also be of value if I could prove that, for
> example, DS-lite is not being deployed either :)
>
> cheers,
> Yannis
>

Hi,


On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:

> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez@otenet.gr');>> wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I
>> know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to
>> hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6
>> (not just trials though, but actual commercial services)
>>
>
> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012. They
> use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be just a
> particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G
> up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE.
>
>
> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.
>
> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The
>

Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more deployed and mature on
many fronts.



> problem is that our management prefers "proven" solutions (i.e deployed by
> other ISPs) and the only proven solutions I'm aware of are full blown CGN
> solutions.
>

Please take cgn off the table if possible.

At this point i will suggest that you also consider rfc6877. It is better
than ipv4 only cgn since major traffic source (netflix, fb, google,
youtube....) are already ipv6 end to end.

t-mobile us has deployed rfc6877 to over 25 million subscribers. It is
baked and works well for mobile, but you asked for residential. Rfc6877
also covers the fixed line case too.

Anyhow, the solution that is best for your network is the one that proves
itself best in your own testing and proof of concept. This will show
deal-breakers and vapor ware

Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers are much more
insightful than anything you will learn on this list.

I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2 limitation that prevents
native ipv6.

I would avoid ipv4 only cgn entirely since the roi will be so poor, it is a
move backwards and you will have to do the real ipv6 project again in a few
years.

That's why I was trying to find commercially deployed cases based on either
> MAP or lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be of value if I could prove
> that, for example, DS-lite is not being deployed either :)
>
> cheers,
> Yannis
>

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 08:08:26PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> It won't be easy to prove that DS-Lite is not being deployed, because there
> are some fairly large deployments in Germany (Kabel Deutschland and
> Unitymedia, both owned by Liberty Global).

<nitpick>
Kabel Deutschland (owned by Vodafone), Unitymedia and Kabel BW (both
owned by Liberty Global).
</nitpick>

That's almost all of the german cable MSO market.


Best regards,
Daniel

--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

On 2014-12-06 17:45, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 08:08:26PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> It won't be easy to prove that DS-Lite is not being deployed, because there
>> are some fairly large deployments in Germany (Kabel Deutschland and
>> Unitymedia, both owned by Liberty Global).
>
> <nitpick>
> Kabel Deutschland (owned by Vodafone), Unitymedia and Kabel BW (both
> owned by Liberty Global).
> </nitpick>
>
> That's almost all of the german cable MSO market.

Add the Austrian market for Liberty Global where they are also 'testing'
it. The Dutch variant (upc.nl + ziggo.nl) has mentions about it and so
does the Swiss edition (UPC/cablecom.ch).

Thus that is most of the German speaking cable world actually...

The UK portion of LG will likely follow to, all in the name of
liberating IPv4 space for business customers^Wthe fact that those
customers did not have typically 4 IPs in use before (modem management,
NAT-IP, phone, mediabox and optionally 3 extra NAT IPs).

And they own a whole lot more of cable around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Global#Markets

who are all going to likely follow too. See it as the Cablecom of
Europe, same business model based on DOCSIS.

According to the top of that page:
"Its cable services pass 47 million homes, with 24.5 million customers
or 48.3 million RGUs (video, internet, and voice subscribers)[3]"

That is quite a big market bigger than Comcast according to:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/the-comcast-time-warner-deal-by-the-numbers/

Greets,
Jeroen

On 12/06/2014 01:08 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not aware of any substantial deployments of MAP with shared
> addressing.
>

that's the one we're interested in unfortunately. That or lw4o6 (even
worse as far as deployments go)

Hello,

IPv4-only CGN was never on the table to begin with. DS-lite doesn't seem
to scale so well, that's why we were focusing on the more stateless
approaches. We have been running a native (dual-stack) IPv6 network for
years, so you're right, IPv4-only CGN would be a move backwards.
I also agree about testing, PoCs and friendly trials but we don't have
the luxury to test a few solutions before deciding, as time is of essence

cheers,
Yannis

p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a
mobile solution.

On 12/06/2014 06:24 PM, Ca By wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
> <mailto:dez@otenet.gr>> wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos
>> <dez@otenet.gr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez@otenet.gr');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential
>> services? I know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but
>> we'd be more interested to hear about network operators
>> deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6 (not just trials
>> though, but actual commercial services)
>>
>>
>> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August
>> 2012. They use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but
>> could be just a particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The
>> service is up to 1G down / 1G up and they do encapsulation in
>> hardware in a proprietary CPE.
>
> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.
>
> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The
>
>
> Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more deployed and
> mature on many fronts.
>
> problem is that our management prefers "proven" solutions (i.e
> deployed by other ISPs) and the only proven solutions I'm aware of
> are full blown CGN solutions.
>
>
> Please take cgn off the table if possible.
>
> At this point i will suggest that you also consider rfc6877. It is
> better than ipv4 only cgn since major traffic source (netflix, fb,
> google, youtube....) are already ipv6 end to end.
>
> t-mobile us has deployed rfc6877 to over 25 million subscribers. It
> is baked and works well for mobile, but you asked for residential.
> Rfc6877 also covers the fixed line case too.
>
> Anyhow, the solution that is best for your network is the one that
> proves itself best in your own testing and proof of concept. This will
> show deal-breakers and vapor ware
>
> Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers are much
> more insightful than anything you will learn on this list.
>
> I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2 limitation that
> prevents native ipv6.
>
> I would avoid ipv4 only cgn entirely since the roi will be so poor, it
> is a move backwards and you will have to do the real ipv6 project
> again in a few years.
>
> That's why I was trying to find commercially deployed cases based
> on either MAP or lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be of value
> if I could prove that, for example, DS-lite is not being deployed
> either :)
>
> cheers,
> Yannis
>

On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> IPv4-only CGN was never on the table to begin with. DS-lite doesn't seem
> to scale so well, that's why we were focusing on the more stateless
> approaches. We have
>


I hear this argument frequently (stateful bad, stateless good) but it is
seldom coupled with deployment experience.

Makes you wonder why some of the largest ipv6-only deployments are stateful
(ds-lite, 464xlat, ...) and the stateless solutions are not even published
as rfcs or deployed at scale yet?



> been running a native (dual-stack) IPv6 network for years, so you're
> right, IPv4-only CGN would be a move backwards.
> I also agree about testing, PoCs and friendly trials but we don't have the
> luxury to test a few solutions before deciding, as time is of essence
>
> cheers,
> Yannis
>
> p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a
> mobile solution.
>
> On 12/06/2014 06:24 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez@otenet.gr');>> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I
>>> know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to
>>> hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6
>>> (not just trials though, but actual commercial services)
>>>
>>
>> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012.
>> They use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be just a
>> particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G
>> up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE.
>>
>>
>> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.
>>
>> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The
>>
>
> Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more deployed and mature
> on many fronts.
>
>
>
>> problem is that our management prefers "proven" solutions (i.e deployed
>> by other ISPs) and the only proven solutions I'm aware of are full blown
>> CGN solutions.
>>
>
> Please take cgn off the table if possible.
>
> At this point i will suggest that you also consider rfc6877. It is
> better than ipv4 only cgn since major traffic source (netflix, fb, google,
> youtube....) are already ipv6 end to end.
>
> t-mobile us has deployed rfc6877 to over 25 million subscribers. It is
> baked and works well for mobile, but you asked for residential. Rfc6877
> also covers the fixed line case too.
>
> Anyhow, the solution that is best for your network is the one that
> proves itself best in your own testing and proof of concept. This will show
> deal-breakers and vapor ware
>
> Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers are much more
> insightful than anything you will learn on this list.
>
> I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2 limitation that prevents
> native ipv6.
>
> I would avoid ipv4 only cgn entirely since the roi will be so poor, it
> is a move backwards and you will have to do the real ipv6 project again in
> a few years.
>
> That's why I was trying to find commercially deployed cases based on
>> either MAP or lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be of value if I could
>> prove that, for example, DS-lite is not being deployed either :)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Yannis
>>
>
>

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 12:08:08PM -0800, Ca By wrote:
> I hear this argument frequently (stateful bad, stateless good) but it is
> seldom coupled with deployment experience.
>
> Makes you wonder why some of the largest ipv6-only deployments are stateful
> (ds-lite, 464xlat, ...) and the stateless solutions are not even published
> as rfcs or deployed at scale yet?

I wonder if that can be correlated with vendor business interest.

Kind regards
Philipp 'And now I'll be considered a conspirary theorist' Kern

On 12/06/2014 10:08 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
> <mailto:dez@otenet.gr>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> IPv4-only CGN was never on the table to begin with. DS-lite
> doesn't seem to scale so well, that's why we were focusing on the
> more stateless approaches. We have
>
>
>
> I hear this argument frequently (stateful bad, stateless good) but it
> is seldom coupled with deployment experience.
>
> Makes you wonder why some of the largest ipv6-only deployments are
> stateful (ds-lite, 464xlat, ...) and the stateless solutions are not
> even published as rfcs or deployed at scale yet?
>

for one, both MAP-E and LW4o6 are quite fresh compared to -for example-
DS-lite. Personally, I (theoretically) prefer lw4o6 over ds-lite, not
because it's stateless, but because it "less stateful" (since it carries
less state in the AFTR)

cheers,
Yannis

p.s: the word in softwires is that both lw4o6 and MAP-E will become RFCs
pretty soon

> been running a native (dual-stack) IPv6 network for years, so
> you're right, IPv4-only CGN would be a move backwards.
> I also agree about testing, PoCs and friendly trials but we don't
> have the luxury to test a few solutions before deciding, as time
> is of essence
>
> cheers,
> Yannis
>
> p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it
> as a mobile solution.
>
> On 12/06/2014 06:24 PM, Ca By wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez@otenet.gr');>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos
>>> <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only
>>> residential services? I know of a couple of DS-lite
>>> implementations, but we'd be more interested to hear
>>> about network operators deploying either MAP or
>>> lightweight 4over6 (not just trials though, but actual
>>> commercial services)
>>>
>>>
>>> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in
>>> August 2012. They use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6
>>> tunnel, but could be just a particular case of MAP-E with no
>>> portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G up and they do
>>> encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE.
>>
>> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.
>>
>> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The
>>
>>
>> Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more deployed and
>> mature on many fronts.
>>
>> problem is that our management prefers "proven" solutions
>> (i.e deployed by other ISPs) and the only proven solutions
>> I'm aware of are full blown CGN solutions.
>>
>>
>> Please take cgn off the table if possible.
>>
>> At this point i will suggest that you also consider rfc6877. It
>> is better than ipv4 only cgn since major traffic source (netflix,
>> fb, google, youtube....) are already ipv6 end to end.
>>
>> t-mobile us has deployed rfc6877 to over 25 million
>> subscribers. It is baked and works well for mobile, but you
>> asked for residential. Rfc6877 also covers the fixed line case too.
>>
>> Anyhow, the solution that is best for your network is the one
>> that proves itself best in your own testing and proof of concept.
>> This will show deal-breakers and vapor ware
>>
>> Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers are
>> much more insightful than anything you will learn on this list.
>>
>> I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2 limitation that
>> prevents native ipv6.
>>
>> I would avoid ipv4 only cgn entirely since the roi will be so
>> poor, it is a move backwards and you will have to do the real
>> ipv6 project again in a few years.
>>
>> That's why I was trying to find commercially deployed cases
>> based on either MAP or lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be
>> of value if I could prove that, for example, DS-lite is not
>> being deployed either :)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Yannis
>>
>

Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> writes:

> p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a
> mobile solution.

I don't see why. If you can enable some other tunnelling solution on the
CPE, then 464xlat should also be an option?

You still end up with the scaling challenge on your NAT64 gateways of
course. But that's at least well proven technology, if you take the
mobile deployments into account.


Bjørn

On 07/12/2014 09:08, Ca By wrote:
> On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> IPv4-only CGN was never on the table to begin with. DS-lite doesn't seem
>> to scale so well, that's why we were focusing on the more stateless
>> approaches. We have
>>
>
>
> I hear this argument frequently (stateful bad, stateless good) but it is
> seldom coupled with deployment experience.

unmanaged stateless bad (see experience with anycast-6to4 and Teredo).

Indeed I think we lack feedback on experience with ISP-managed stateless,
except for rude words about RFC 6732 "6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels".

Brian

>
> Makes you wonder why some of the largest ipv6-only deployments are stateful
> (ds-lite, 464xlat, ...) and the stateless solutions are not even published
> as rfcs or deployed at scale yet?
>
>
>
>> been running a native (dual-stack) IPv6 network for years, so you're
>> right, IPv4-only CGN would be a move backwards.
>> I also agree about testing, PoCs and friendly trials but we don't have the
>> luxury to test a few solutions before deciding, as time is of essence
>>
>> cheers,
>> Yannis
>>
>> p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a
>> mobile solution.
>>
>> On 12/06/2014 06:24 PM, Ca By wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 5, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dez@otenet.gr');>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I
>>>> know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to
>>>> hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6
>>>> (not just trials though, but actual commercial services)
>>>>
>>> Softbank (Japan) launched an IPv4-over-IPv6 service in August 2012.
>>> They use what looks to me to be an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, but could be just a
>>> particular case of MAP-E with no portset. The service is up to 1G down / 1G
>>> up and they do encapsulation in hardware in a proprietary CPE.
>>>
>>>
>>> I remember them deploying 6rd, but I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> We're considering MAP or lw4o6. The
>>>
>> Those and ds-lite are good. Ds-lite is clearly more deployed and mature
>> on many fronts.
>>
>>
>>
>>> problem is that our management prefers "proven" solutions (i.e deployed
>>> by other ISPs) and the only proven solutions I'm aware of are full blown
>>> CGN solutions.
>>>
>> Please take cgn off the table if possible.
>>
>> At this point i will suggest that you also consider rfc6877. It is
>> better than ipv4 only cgn since major traffic source (netflix, fb, google,
>> youtube....) are already ipv6 end to end.
>>
>> t-mobile us has deployed rfc6877 to over 25 million subscribers. It is
>> baked and works well for mobile, but you asked for residential. Rfc6877
>> also covers the fixed line case too.
>>
>> Anyhow, the solution that is best for your network is the one that
>> proves itself best in your own testing and proof of concept. This will show
>> deal-breakers and vapor ware
>>
>> Proof of concepts and friendly trials with real customers are much more
>> insightful than anything you will learn on this list.
>>
>> I would avoid 6rd unless you have and L1 or L2 limitation that prevents
>> native ipv6.
>>
>> I would avoid ipv4 only cgn entirely since the roi will be so poor, it
>> is a move backwards and you will have to do the real ipv6 project again in
>> a few years.
>>
>> That's why I was trying to find commercially deployed cases based on
>>> either MAP or lw4o6. Alternatively, It would also be of value if I could
>>> prove that, for example, DS-lite is not being deployed either :)
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Yannis
>>>
>>
>

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> wrote:

> > p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a
> > mobile solution.
>
> I don't see why. If you can enable some other tunnelling solution on the
> CPE, then 464xlat should also be an option?
>

>From a technical perspective, 464xlat is pretty much the worst. It has all
the disadvantages of DS-Lite, and additionally is less transparent because
translation is lossier than encapsulation.

Its advantages were that it didn't require any protocol work or
provisioning work, and NAT64 implementations already existed, so it was
ready much sooner than everything else. It can be implemented relatively
easily in userspace in hosts. The mobile networks that were under pressure
to go IPv6-only a) already weren't providing transparent IPv4 because they
were using CGN and b) couldn't deploy DS-Lite because the encapsulation
would have broken the DPI mechanisms they used for billing.

Now, of course, it has the advantage that it's fairly widely deployed.

I'd say it's a good fit for mobile networks, but perhaps not so much for
wireline.