[arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

Zed Usser zzuser at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 18 02:24:53 CST 2011


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> In case you have not already found this: 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 

There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.

"draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading.  It claims to analyze NAT444, but it really analyzes what fails when two problems occur: (a) port forwarding isn't configured and (b) UPnP is unavailable or is broken. Several architectures share those two problems:

  * NAT444 (NAPT44 in the home + NAPT44 in the carrier's network)
  * LSN (NAPT44 in the carrier's network, without a NAPT44 in the home)
  * DS-Lite (which is an LSN / NAPT44 in the carrier's network)
  * stateful NAT64"

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09027.html

Be that as it may and putting my devil's advocate hat on, aren't the unintended consequences of NAT444 a net win for ISPs? :)

Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook, Youtube,...), but:
- Less torrenting
- Less Netflix watching
- Less FTP downloads
- Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)

You might take a hit on online gaming, but what else is there not to love? :)

Your sales department / helpdesk might have a bit of hassle of trying to undestand / explain this new Intertubes to the suck^H^H^H^Hcustomers, but most of them won't care either way.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6 domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to deal with these issues in any case?

- Zed


      




More information about the NANOG mailing list