BR support is maturing nicely. A few other vendors with implementations: Arista - https://www.arista.com/en/support/toi/eos-4-24-0f/14495-map-t-border-relay Nokia - https://infocenter.nokia.com/public/7750SR140R4/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.sr.msisa%2Fhtml%2Fnat.html Netgate/TNSR - https://docs.netgate.com/tnsr/en/latest/map/index.html
Thx, Ben > On Mar 25, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > FWIW, MAP has been deployed by few operators (in at least 3 continents that I > am aware of). > > Charter communications is one of the public references (see NANOG preso > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w). > > MAP (CPE function) has been supported in OpenWRT software (as well as many > CPE vendor implementations) for few years now; > MAP (BR function) has been supported by few vendors including Cisco (in > IOS-XE and XR). > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > https://openwrt.org/packages/pkgdata_owrt18_6/map-t > https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/map > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rajiva=cisco....@nanog.org> on behalf of Vasilenko > Eduard via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Reply-To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> > Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:17 AM > To: Jared Brown <nanog-...@mail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: RE: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) > > Hi Jared, > Theoretically, MAP is better. But > > 1. Nobody has implemented it for the router. > The code for the CGNAT engine gives the same cost/performance. > No promised advantage from potentially stateless protocol. > > 2.MAP needs much bigger address space (not everybody has) because: > a) powered-off subscribers consume their blocks anyway > b) it is not possible to add "on the fly" additional 64 ports to the > particular subscriber that abuse some Apple application (and go to 1k ports > consumption) that may drive far above any reasonable limit of ports per subs. > Design should block a big enough number of UDP/TCP ports for every subs > (even most silent/conservative). > > Ed/ > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org] > On Behalf Of Jared Brown > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:49 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: MAP-T (was: Re: V6 still not supported) > > Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After > watching a NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this. > > Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the > provider side? > > Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE, vendor > support, or something else? > > > NANOG 2017 > Mapping of Address and Port using Translation MAP T: Deployment at Charter > Communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w > > > - Jared >