jared at puck.nether.net
Tue Feb 1 08:53:59 CST 2011
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 1/31/2011 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one subscriber)
>> doesn't help.
>> 2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current NAT44.
> To be honest, ds-lite, despite being single layer still breaks most things that a NAT44 with upnp won't.
>> 3. Users subjected to this environment after experiencing the
>> limited brokenness of NAT44 or full access to the internet
>> will not be happy.
> Neither would an engineer, which is why we have real IPs at our house. :)
>> 4. Maintaining NAT444 environments will be a support headache
>> and a costly arms race of deployments and management.
> Even maintaining dual stack is costly. NAT444 just makes it worse.
>> 5. IPv6 will cost a lot less than NAT444 as soon as they can
>> get their subscribers fully deployed and is a much more
>> desirable alternative.
> Yep. Once the NSPs get their stuff done and we have decent routing paths, the eyeballs will either already be done or quickly behind them, and then the content can start switching over without the fears they currently have.
Honestly, if you can't get native wholesale IP, you are buying from the wrong carriers.
More information about the NANOG