Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 10 14:58:20 CST 2011


On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> 
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 
>> On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> DS-lite is still CGN.
>> 
>> It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces because of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that you have IPv6 connectivity. NAT444 makes no such assertion.
> 
> DS-lite *uses* IPv6 connectivity, it doesn't provide it.  That's like saying 6rd or 6to4 "guarantees you have IPv4 connectivity".
> 
> As for NAT444 (or double-NAT):  One could just as easily deploy DS-lite with a NAT444 configuration.  Or deploy CGN without NAT444 (e.g. CGN44, by managing subnets delegated to each subscriber).  The two topics are related but separate.
> 
I think that at the point where you go to NAT444 instead of tunneling the IPv4, it's Dual-Stack, but, not Dual-Stack-Lite.

> In terms of CGN44 versus NAT444, I'd like to see evidence of something that breaks in NAT444 but not CGN44.  People seem to have a gut expectation that this is the case, and I'm open to the possibility.  But testing aimed at demonstrating that breakage hasn't been very scientific, as discussed in the URLs I posted with my previous message.
> 
Technologies which depend on a rendezvous host that can know about both sides of both NATs in a private->public->private
scenario will break in a private->private2->public->private2->private scenario. There are technologies and applications which
depend on this. (I believe, among others, that's how many of the p2p systems work, no?)

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list