The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as Sony Playstation Network will put those addresses in the black list, so you need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the addresses dynamically.
Furthermore, if some users need less ports than others, you “infra-utilize” those addresses, which again is not the case for 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets automatically as many ports as he needs at every moment. So, you save money in terms of addresses, that you can invest in a couple of servers running a redundant NAT64 setup (https://www.jool.mx/en/session-synchronization.html). Those servers can be actually VMs, so you don’t need dedicated hardware, especially because when you deploy IPv6 with 464XLAT, typically 75% (and going up) of you traffic will be IPv6 and only 25% will go thru the NAT64. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 2/8/19 18:24, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org en nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> escribió: The goal is to minimize cost. Assuming 4 bits for the MAP routing (16 users sharing one IPv4), leaving 12 bits for customer ports (4096 ports) and a current price of USD 20 per IPv4 address, this gives a cost of USD 1.25 per user for a fully redundant solution. For us it is even cheaper as we can recirculate existing address space. Regards, Baldur On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:32 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: I understand that, but the inconvenient is the fix allocation of ports per client, and not all the clients use the same number of ports. Every option has good and bad things. MAP is less efficient in terms of maximizing the “use” of the existing IPv4 addresses. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/ Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org en nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> escribió: Hi Jordi My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid the expense and operative nightmare of having to run a redundant NAT server setup with thousands of users. MAP is the only alternative that avoids a provider run NAT server. Regards, Baldur On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:38 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: Ask the vendor to support RFC8585. Also, you can do it with OpenWRT. I think 464XLAT is a better option and both of them are supported by OpenWRT. You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 2/8/19 14:20, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org en nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> escribió: Hello Are there any known public deployments of MAP-E? What about CPE routers with support? The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E appears to be the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a packet and route it as normal. No need to invest in anything as our core routers can already do that. No worries about scale. BUT - our current CPE has zero support. We are too small that they will make this feature just for us, so I need to convince them there is going to be a demand. Alternatively I need to find a different CPE vendor that has MAP-E support, but are there any? What is holding MAP-E back? In my view MAP-E could be the end game for IPv4. Customers get full IPv6 and enough of IPv4 to be somewhat compatible. The ISP networks are not forced to do a lot of processing such as CGN otherwise requires. I read some posts from Japan where users are reporting a deployment of MAP-E. Anyone know about that? Regards, Baldur ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
