Is there anyway to deploy ipv6 and push ipv4 traffic end to end across the ipv6 network. With out having an ipv4 address for everything that is ipv6? If someone could reach out off list if there is a real solution to deploy ipv6 as almost middleware.
Is there anyway to deploy ipv6 and push ipv4 traffic end to end across the ipv6 network. With out having an ipv4 address for everything that is ipv6? If someone could reach out off list if there is a real solution to deploy ipv6 as almost middleware.
This has been deployed in many networks, mostly mobiles, but also wireline broadband and data center
I've been looking into implementing 646XLAT, however I found the problem ends up with clients' routers.
When you give them Ethernet cable that has internet on it, whatever it gets plugged into must support CLAT in order for 646XLAT to work. I was not able to find any small devices that support it natively, at least according to their description. The only way I found to enable CLAT support is to flash those devices with OpenWRT, which is not really an option when you are giving away those tiny boxes to residential clients when they sign up with you.
So for now we're stuck with CGNAT. 
I do hope I'm wrong and you can tell me which device works with 646XLAT out of the box. And hopefully it's something TRENDnet's.
You probably mean 464XLAT ....
Ask you vendors. They should support it. Ask for RFC8585 support, even better.
If they don't do, is because they are interested only in selling new boxes ... just something to think in the future about those vendors.
I can tell you that many vendors now support or are waiting for some customers to ask for it, the CLAT. I've been doing this for many customers. Sometimes, they only do under request, same as many other firmware features.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 24/8/20 16:32, "NANOG en nombre de Roman Tatarnikov" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de r.tatarnikov@intlos.org> escribió:
I've been looking into implementing 646XLAT, however I found the problem ends up with clients' routers.
When you give them Ethernet cable that has internet on it, whatever it gets plugged into must support CLAT in order for 646XLAT to work. I was not able to find any small devices that support it natively, at least according to their description. The only way I found to enable CLAT support is to flash those devices with OpenWRT, which is not really an option when you are giving away those tiny boxes to residential clients when they sign up with you.
So for now we're stuck with CGNAT. I do hope I'm wrong and you can tell me which device works with 646XLAT out of the box. And hopefully it's something TRENDnet's.
If CLAT support were wide-spread, it would quickly accelerate the
deployment of IPv6 in broadband applications.
Not even Mikrotik are doing it, and they pretty much own the FTTH CPE
market in many countries.
If only CPE's could run Android, or Windows :-).
Mark.
I'd wager that a lot of them already build upon a Linux kernel of some
flavour. Tore (et al) wrote a CLAT for Linux that builds upon TAYGA's
NAT64 functionality: https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd
You probably mean 464XLAT …
Ask you vendors. They should support it. Ask for RFC8585 support, even better.
If they don’t do, is because they are interested only in selling new boxes … just something to think in the future about those vendors.
I can tell you that many vendors now support or are waiting for some customers to ask for it, the CLAT. I’ve been doing this for many customers. Sometimes, they only do under request, same as many other firmware features.
If CLAT support were wide-spread, it would quickly accelerate the
deployment of IPv6 in broadband applications.
Not even Mikrotik are doing it, and they pretty much own the FTTH CPE
market in many countries.
If only CPE’s could run Android, or Windows :-).
Mark.
Askey ships 464xlat boxes for T-Mobile in the USA, so they have the products and the knowledge to make it work
https://www.askey.com.tw/index.html
I am aware of other big CPE makers too, but this is the public one providing product today. Also, anything based on OpenWRT works… which is increasingly the base vendors build on.
Thanks, Cameron. We’ll reach out and see what we can do with them. Mark.
I guess my point was this is out in the wild on millions of devices
working like a charm. For probably as long as I've known Cameron, even...
All CPE vendors know that IPv6 is what will give them continued sales
and growth. I'd rather they stopped fixing 6to4 bugs and actually wrote
CLAT implementations.
Chances are an 802.11ax wireless router you can pick up in the shop has
some basic IPv6 support (you know, SLAAC... maybe PD if they really put
in some elbow-grease), but not CLAT. All that tech. for some fancy
wi-fi, and I can't do the basics?
It's like router vendors telling me how many 10Gbps, 40Gbps and 100Gbps
ports their new box or line card is shipping with, but don't understand
all that speed means nothing if I can't get a feature I need to work due
to immature software or chipset limitations. It's NOT ALWAYS about port
or fabric speed.
And it's NOT ALWAYS about the latest wi-fi standards.
It's 2020.
Mark.
Many vendors are running on top of OpenWRT or Linux, and both of them have CLAT support.
Unfortunately, I can't give names which aren't already published, such as Sagemcom, D-Link, NEC and Technicolor. Believe me there are others, you just need to ask them.
Mikrotik is the worst vendor for anything related to transition. They only run pure dual-stack, and even on that, they are really bad. They even use a broken naming convention against the standards. They use 6to4 instead of 6in4, which get a lot of folks confused ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 25/8/20 18:15, "NANOG en nombre de Mark Tinka" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de mark.tinka@seacom.com> escribió:
Many vendors are running on top of OpenWRT or Linux, and both of them have CLAT support.
Unfortunately, I can't give names which aren't already published, such as Sagemcom, D-Link, NEC and Technicolor. Believe me there are others, you just need to ask them.
This shouldn't be that hard.
Mikrotik is the worst vendor for anything related to transition. They only run pure dual-stack, and even on that, they are really bad. They even use a broken naming convention against the standards. They use 6to4 instead of 6in4, which get a lot of folks confused ...
Agreed. But they are just about the only mass CPE vendor that ships code
to add capability, vs. the traditional ones who require you to buy a new
router every year just to get new features.
That and being so cheap, you can't talk customers out of preferring to
buy them. It's not a great situation, but hey... supply & demand.
Mark.
Many vendors are running on top of OpenWRT or Linux, and both of them have CLAT support.
Unfortunately, I can’t give names which aren’t already published, such as Sagemcom, D-Link, NEC and Technicolor. Believe me there are others, you just need to ask them.
This shouldn’t be that hard.
— NDAs
Mikrotik is the worst vendor for anything related to transition. They only run pure dual-stack, and even on that, they are really bad. They even use a broken naming convention against the standards. They use 6to4 instead of 6in4, which get a lot of folks confused …
Agreed. But they are just about the only mass CPE vendor that ships code
to add capability, vs. the traditional ones who require you to buy a new
router every year just to get new features.
That and being so cheap, you can’t talk customers out of preferring to
buy them. It’s not a great situation, but hey… supply & demand.
— I’ve managed to get better support from vendors which are different than Mikrotik. Some years ago, I even offered Mikrotik free help to correctly do transition … and I’m still waiting for a single response. I guess they have other priorities than IPv6 at all.
— I can buy 10-15 USD CPEs directly from China, with OpenWRT already installed, which have exactly the same design as the Mikrotik (same SoC, same number of LAN/WAN ports, etc.).
You’re probably right. But if Mikrotik are having great success at meeting the budget of most providers and customers, perhaps a different approach is worth considering. Not that you haven’t done you utmost best, as I know you to always do, Jordi. I wish I didn’t have to deal with Mikrotik either, but reality is far more different. Heck, I even own and use one myself, for my home FTTH connection :-). Mark.
I just make it easy and don’t support the client using their own router. Doesn’t work? unplug your router and use mine.
That eliminates a lot of problems.
Last I asked SmartRG (Adtran), they were supporting 464XLAT with CLAT, though I haven't verified that it works. They're at least acknowledging demand for it which is a nice step forward.
Even comparing Mikrotik (volume) vs low-volume purchases in China, there are few much cheaper products offering at least the same Mikrotik functions/performance.
A few years ago, I was thinking that the cost of the “replacement” of the CPE was too high for most of the operators. Not because the CPE itself, but the logistics or actually replacing it.
But since a few years, when you put the cost of CGN + IPv4 addresses (or actually just buying “more” IPv4 addresses and offering dual-stack without CGN – because the CGN will require you to swap the IPv4 pools just because Sony PSN is continuously blacklisting you) versus the lower number of IPv4 addresses needed for 464XLAT and lower number of NAT64 boxes, in most cases, it compensates for the cost of replacing the CPEs, and you have additional marketing advantages that you can sell and even charge for them, such as “Now we give you a box with Gigabit ports, greener for the planet - lower power consumption, better WiFi, better security, ready for the future with IPv6, IPv6 is faster with your social networks, youtube and many websites, etc., etc.)
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
This is very common in many countries and not related to IPv6, but because many operators have special configs or features in the CPEs they provide.
If you don’t use our own CPE, we can’t warrantee the service neither the support.
I really, really hate to force users to use my network edge router (I provide the ONT, though, and I provide an edge router that works and most users do take it), but it can be tough to ensure users have something that supports all the right modern features and can be configured via standard means.
It would be nice if the consumer router industry could get its collective act together and at least come up with some easy-ish to understand feature support table that customers can match up with their service provider's list of needs. The status quo of a list of devices that work right (which is of course often staggeringly short if you're doing any of these modern transition mechanisms) that needs constant updating and may not be easily available is not ideal.
Heck just having a real, complete list of supported features on the model support page on their website would be an improvement...
I usually solve this problem by designing for NAT444 and dual-stack. This solves both problems and allows for users to migrate as they are able/need to. If you try and force the change, you will loose users.
Simplest solution that comes to mind is run a GRE/IPv6 tunnel from one end to the other with IPv4 addresses on the tunnel endpoints only.
Owen