NAT444 or ?

Sat Sep 10 06:02:05 UTC 2011

On Friday, September 09, 2011 01:44:08 AM Dan Wing wrote:

> Many of the problems are due to IPv4 address sharing,
> which will be problems for A+P, CGN, HTTP proxies, and
> other address sharing technologies.  RFC6269 discusses
> most (or all) of those problems. There are workarounds
> to those problems, but most are not pretty.  The
> solution is IPv6.

I do expect some of these workarounds to be vendor and/or 
platform specific, as more units are deployed and the 
industry simply can't keep up with the various topologies 
and customer elasticities ISP's have to maintain.

We're already seeing evidence of this as we discuss NAT64 
options with vendors, particularly in the area of scale and 
customer experience perceptions.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110910/f31e2ba4/attachment.sig>