Hi Douglas,
In a different mailing list, we had a discussion with Tore about his testing and other testing that may not be available in that blog. It was basically about 464XLAT.
As you know IPv6-only with IPv4aaS, provides *dual-stack* in the customer LANs, where the PS5 was sitting.
So, we concluded in that discussion that there is *no difference* for the PS5 being used with 464XLAT vs “regular dual-stack”, as expected.
Further to that, I’ve done a very complete testing, for a customer, with a PS4 in a LAN with 464XLAT and everything worked fine. Unfortunately, as this was contracted by a customer, I can’t disclose all the test set, but believe me it worked. It is a deployment with 25.000.000 customers, using GPON, DSL and cellular.
Hello Mark...
Yes, until when I was decided to Fight Agins IPv4, I tried the Fixes.
But after some time, I saw that very little of the problems were due to inadequacies of the ISP's responsibility equipment.
Most of the difficulties stemmed from:
A) Choices of end-users in their networks.
(Something that the ISP may even try to influence, but that ends up bringing more "childrens" to the support queue, as customers said, "Your company that recommended me to use software X instead of Y, so you have to teach me how to use software X".)
B) Lack of adequate support for IPv6 by the companies that provided the service on the internet (eGames, IPTV, SIP-VOIP).
After some time beating the dead horse, and mainly seeing that these problems did not happen with Dual-Stack, I decided to do what I was able to do well.
Since 1-2 years ago, things have improved a lot in these two points, pointed out as problems that do not concern the ISP.
Perhaps it is time to review this approach.
Em qua., 24 de fev. de 2021 às 18:35, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> escreveu:
Well then use one of the encapsulating IPv4AAS mechanisms rather than 464XLAT (DS-Lite, MAP-E). They don’t involve translating the payload between IPv4 and IPv6. That said what you are reporting below are implementation bugs. Did you report them to the vendor? Did you install the fix? Rewriting is required as you may have native IPv6 clients rather than clients behind a CLAT on the customer side.
> On 25 Feb 2021, at 01:48, Douglas Fischer <fischerdouglas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is this pain you have lived or verified with first hand testing?
>
> Yep! A lot!
>
> LOL gamers can be pretty much insistent...
> (haha.jpg + haha-crying.jpg)
>
> And Specifically on SIP/Voip over the Internet, with deep analysis at all the parts involved.
> The most common issue is incoming Calls to SIP endpoints behind 464Xlat using IPv4 with unidirectional audio.
> And several types of causes:
> - CPEs receives the RTP-Stream but doesn't Re-Map it correctly to the IPv4 inside end-point
> - Jool receives the RTP-Stream but ignores it and don't map it to the "fake" v6 address
> - Some APPs do (by some crazy reason) the re-write of Session Layer header to v6 address, and Sip-Proxys ignores it...
>
> After hours and hours fighting against the lions, we decided:
> "Let's keep those clients in Dual-Stak and CGNAT" and it just worked.
>
> And after that, the obvious conclusions:
> - Why will us keep that much options of endpoints connections, if only one solves all the problems?
> - We will need to train the guys on the Dual-Stack/CGNAT Scnario, and 464Xlat Scenario... Knowing about Danos, about Jool...
> - It doesn't scale!
>
>
> --
> Douglas Fernando Fischer
> Engº de Controle e Automação
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
--
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº de Controle e Automação
--
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº de Controle e Automação