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

Benson Schliesser bensons at queuefull.net
Fri Feb 18 17:07:30 CST 2011


On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> The document is titled "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network Applications" and it claims to discuss NAT444 issues.  However, it conflates NAT444 with CGN.  And it is often used as an explanation for supporting alternative technology such as DS-lite, even though DS-lite also leverages CGN.  This line of reasoning is broken and, as I've stated already, I'm waiting for somebody to offer evidence that NAT444 is more problematic than CGN.
>> 
> NAT444 is one implementation of CGN and the issues it describes all apply to NAT444.
> 
> It does not claim that it discusses issues unique to NAT444. It claims that all of the issues it discusses
> apply to NAT444. That claim is accurate.

You continue to conflate NAT444 and CGN.  I'm not sure I can say anything that hasn't already been said, but perhaps an example will help:

Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web.  That doesn't make it accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak support for claims that email would work better.


>> Yes.  And today's customers enjoy being able to communicate with the IPv4 Internet.  CGN may be sub-optimal, but it's the lesser of two evils (disconnection being the other choice).
>> 
> I remain unconvinced of the accuracy of this statement.

Well, if your user does nothing but send email then perhaps even UUCP would be good enough.  But for the rest of us, until IPv6 penetration reaches all the content/services we care about, we need dual v4+v6 connectivity.

Cheers,
-Benson






More information about the NANOG mailing list