Re: Use of NPTv6 in a mobile service provider network

["Dobbins, Roland via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

On Feb 4, 2025, at 03:14, Amos Rosenboim <amos () oasis-tech net> wrote:

As much as I love to be a network purist who hates state maintenance in the core of the network, the sad reality is 
that these devices are there and will remain there for the foreseeable future.

Not on reliable, resilient networks of any significance, they aren’t.

Network operators who deploy them end up removing them, for the reasons previously described. This isn’t an abstract 
techno-philosophical stance; I’ve seen this happen repeatedly, after significant network outages which resulted from 
poor design choices.

Mobile operators need IPv4 address sharing

The way to accomplish this is with NAT64/DNS64 with 464XLAT. This approach is used by some of the largest wireless 
network operators in the world; if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for your customer.


NPTv6 is not a viable alternative for mobile operators because it disrupts end-to-end IPv6 connectivity, which can 
cause problems with IPSEC and the like; lacks a built-in IPv4 transition mechanism; and has a significant negative 
impact on the stability and resiliency of the network. NPTv6 shouldn’t exist; and to the degree that it’s even remotely 
suitable for any network at all, it’s only for small enterprise endpoint networks which exercise a substantial degree 
of administrative control over the communications of the nodes on said networks.

--------------------------------------------

Roland Dobbins <roland.dobbins () netscout com>