On 01/12/2019 20:57, Ole Troan wrote:

...

No matter how hard you try, at the end of the day LW4o6 is still stateful mechanism.

Just make sure there are no misunderstandings. MAP-E and LW46 both have the same NAT placement (at the CPE). A MAP-E implementation can implement LW46 by supporting a MAP rule per subscriber. So it’s more correct to say that LW46 has per-user configured state, and that MAP-E can aggregate this configured state into a few rules covering the whole domain. Both are stateless, in contrast to a NAT that has state per session.

Ya, you are right. Got confused for a millisecond with dslight ;) Too many things going on right now. My bad. As far as I remember - LW4o6 is useful in cases where you don't have one huge IPv4 block of addresses to assign to the transition mechanism and/or where you want to dynamically assign additional ports to the CPE if it runs out of it. If none of this is a requirement, then MAP-E/T should be the way to go. Do we have any experiments/deployments of 464XLAT in fixed networks? CLAT in CPE and NAT64 in the core? Cheers, Jan