Re: [LibreQoS] how are you doing on ipv4 address supply?

[Herbert Wolverson <herberticus@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5238 bytes --]

The main reason I was asking about MPLS is that it looks pretty easy to
extract the data, and I've seen a bunch of people on the WISP Talk FB group
complaining about having to de-encapsulate before they pass things through
Preseem. Where I could see that being most useful is if you have a shaper
at a tower (rather than just the one), and want to shape your backhaul
directly. I'll keep it on the "things to play with" list. :-)

We ran MPLS/VPLS for a while; we were pretty surprised when our network
sped up a lot when it was removed! (Routers got really good at routing, and
it's often faster than parsing a label these days). It also made it easier
for the other techs to diagnose faults, MPLS never seemed to "click" for
them.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:15 PM Robert Chacón <
robert.chacon@jackrabbitwireless.com> wrote:

> We use MPLS (VPLS tunnels back to core) with L2 isolation and DHCP
> snooping everywhere.
> It decapsulates at our core so we don't need MPLS parsing for LibreQoS in
> our case.
> It works well and minimizes the number of RFC6598 CG-NAT clients behind
> public addresses.
> I'd prefer simple routing, but with IPv4 exhaustion - that would lead to a
> lot of unused RFC6598 addresses (and hence high CG-NAT ratios).
> Many clients on one CG-NAT address leads to a lot of problems with
> services like Amazon Prime.
> I'm hopeful we can switch to VXLAN as Dan suggested. It could be a great
> alternative to VPLS/MPLS.
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:49 AM dan via LibreQoS <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> MPLS is great for those that have dedicated engineering staff or hire a
>> consultant to help out.  It's a real PITA when the business is primarily
>> techs and they have no idea how to solve an issue.   I've been pushing for
>> vxlan/evpn or srv6 for a while as a way to simplify the model.  'wisp'
>> focused gear just isn't there yet though.  high hopes for mikrotik's
>> support for vxlan to get hardware acceleration.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:05 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS <
>> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually had a conversation with our primary upstream provider yesterday
>>> about IPv6 (and why
>>> they won't provide it to us). One of their lead engineers, once plied
>>> with beer, said that every
>>> time they've deployed it they get 99% of it working well and 1% of
>>> things mysteriously
>>> stop working, or go wonky. That was similar to our experience a few
>>> years ago. It mostly
>>> helped a lot, but chasing down the "hey, this advertises a v6 address
>>> and doesn't actually
>>> support it" issues drove us crazy.
>>>
>>> Right now, we don't have enough IPv4 addresses, but that's being
>>> rectified. We mostly
>>> do CGNAT and 10.64 addresses in the meantime, with public IPs assigned
>>> where they
>>> are needed (mostly through a tunnel setup to avoid subnetting waste).
>>> Tunnels are a pain,
>>> but they work (once you chase down all of the MTU issues).
>>>
>>> Which reminds me, I have "can we support MPLS?" on my crazy notes list.
>>> I know that
>>> Preseem and similar don't try, but we're already reading deeply enough
>>> into the ethernet
>>> header that saying "this is an MPLS label, advance 4 bytes", "this is a
>>> VPLS label, advance
>>> X (I forget) bytes" looks do-able. [Note, I personally don't enjoy MPLS.
>>> It's handy when
>>> you want to pretend to have a flat network on top of a large routed
>>> network - and some
>>> WISP consultants absolutely swear by it - but my experience is that you
>>> are adding
>>> complexity for the sake of it. Routing works remarkably well.]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <
>>> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> in my continued rip-van-winkle, living in the third world (california)
>>>> way, I am curious as to how y'all are managing your
>>>> ipv4 address supply and if you are deploying ipv6 to any extent?
>>>>
>>>> In all this discussion of multi-gbit fiber, my own direct experience
>>>> is that AT&T's fiber rollout had very flaky ipv6, and more and more
>>>> services (like starlink) are appearing behind cgnats, which have their
>>>> own capex and opex costs.
>>>>
>>>> I see a lot of rfc1918 being used as the operational overlay
>>>> elsewhere, tons of tunnels, also.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LibreQoS mailing list
>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Chacón
> CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC <http://jackrabbitwireless.com>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7315 bytes --]