Indeed MAP-E requires CPE replacement/upgrade cost. But I would like to share JANOG Softwire WG Activity. http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58856/apnic35-janog-softwire_1361559276.pdf
MAP-E already supported by 6 vendors,7 implementations. It includes 2 open source(OpenWRT and ASAMAP) and 2 kernel(Linux 2.6.18 and NetBSD 4.0.1). Regards, Shishio (2013/04/08 23:23), Jack Bates wrote: > On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: >> BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4 >> address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the >> need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE. > > The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the point that > 1 IPv4 Address per customer won't accommodate user bases. > > The larger issue I think with MAP is CPE support requirements. There are ISP > layouts that use bridging instead of CPE routers (which was a long term > design to support IPv6 without CPE replacements years later). CGN will handle > the IPv4 issues in this setup just fine. Then there are those who have > already deployed IPv6 capable CPEs with PPP or DHCP in a router configuration > which does not have MAP support. Given the variety of CPE vendors that end up > getting deployed over a longer period of time, it is easier and more cost > effective to deploy CGN than try and replace all the CPEs. > > Given US$35/CPE, cost for replacements (not including deployment costs) for > 20k users is US$700k. CGN gear suddenly doesn't seem so costly. > > The only way I see it justifiable is if you haven't had IPv6 deployment in > mind yet and you are having to replace every CPE for IPv6 support anyways, > you might go with a MAPS/IPv6 aware CPE which the customer pays for if they > wish IPv6 connectivity(or during whatever slow trickle replacement methods > you utilize). While waiting for the slow rollout, CGN would be an interim > cost that would be acceptable. I'm not sure there is a reason for MAPS if > you've already deployed CGN, though. > > I am sure Verizon did a lot of cost analysis. > > Jack > > . >
