I’ve gotten a lot of great feedback and want to restate some of my thoughts for further discussion:
1. It seems like the MAP-T is still in an initial phase of development/production. I’ve seen a few other people mentioning it, but it is early in deployment today. 2. When working with smaller and regional eye-ball networks throughout the US you need to be aware of a couple things. Think no engineering team, just an implementation crew and local support people (Small telco mentality). They need commercially available and widely supported solutions. Based on the feedback I’ve seen so far, I would think that positioning a MAP-T solution in these scenarios might be more of a hassle and turn into a support nightmare. I’m leaning toward DS-lite and NAT444 right now as these are more proven and have greater deployed bases. Thoughts… - Brian > On Jul 22, 2020, at 4:15 PM, Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: > > Has anyone implemented a MAP-T solution in production? I am looking for > feedback on this as a deployment strategy for an IPv6 only core design. My > concern is MAP-T CE stability and overhead on the network. The BR will have > to do overloaded NAT anyway to access IPv4 only resources. The idea being > that when IPv4 is no longer needed, this will be a quicker “clean-up” project > than a dual-stack solution. > > I have reviewed Jordan Gotlieb’s presentation from Charter and would love to > hear if this is still in use at Charter or if was ever fully implemented and > the experiences) > > I’d love any real life examples and success/failure stories. > > Thanks. > > - Brian
