[ipv6-wg] including a CLAT (464XLAT) SSID in RIPE meetings

Dne 22.3.2017 v 22:54 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ napsal(a):
> With 464XLAT (or MAP), you avoid deploying CGN, which is a high cost, and you provide the *same* functionality that today “regular” customers (residential, SMEs, even many big companies that don’t have to export IPv4 services outside their LANs). If we demonstrate this “live” in the RIPE meeting network, I think we can change some of the participant’s minds, and I believe the cost of that is really small, may be a couple of hours of one of your OPS team colleagues, as I’ve already done the work and I’m happy to help them on testing in their lab, document what I’ve done (already working on that), and
> anything else they may need.

Hi Jordi,

can you please elaborate some more about how it should look like from
the technical point of view? Because as I now read it, I just imagine an
SSID with dual-stack IPv6/RFC1918 IPv4, where the IPv6 will go natively,
and IPv4 would be:

 1. translated from IPv4 to IPv4 (can be part of step 2)
 2. translated from IPv4 to IPv6
 3. forwarded as IPv6 to another (or even same(!)) box
 4. translated from IPv6 to IPv4
 5. translated from IPv4 to public IPv4 (can be part of step 4)

My bet is that this very complex translating exercise will not harm the
packets much more than just a single NAT (except some latency, maybe).
And the wireless access network users will just see a dual-stack network
with NATed IPv4, which is actually AFAIK the most common way of
deploying IPv6 nowadays.

Now the question is: How would you explain to an IPv6-newbie what is the
difference between `ripemtg` and `ripemtg-464xlat' networks?

My explanation would be like: "Those networks work exactly the same way,
but in the latter case, there is a one meter long cable back in the ops
room, where all the traffic from the latter network is carried as just
IPv6 protocol. Then it's translated back to IPv4 for the Internet"

But that's probably not the explanation I would like to hear as an
IPv6-newbie. Am I missing something?

Also:
> Having just a NAT64 gives the impression to the people that today you can deploy IPv6-only access to customers and we know is not the case, because the app.

Not a problem with today's smartphones. All iPhone apps has been fixed
thanks to Apple's pressure, a lot of recent Android (6.0+) devices
features CLAT integrated that works even via Wi-Fi. If Microsoft pushes
CLAT into some future version of Windows, the problem with apps would be
mostly gone and IPv6-only access networks would be fully usable even for
end-stations.

Cheers,
Ondřej Caletka

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3718 bytes
Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20170324/c0a02494/attachment.p7s>