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

Fri Feb 18 23:27:13 UTC 2011

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:

> 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.

I don't think that's a great analogy. NAT444 is CGN, the web is not
DNS. If I say I can chop down a tree with a red ax, can you disprove
that by saying that you can chop it down with any color ax?

> 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.

If we get dual v4+v6 connectivity quickly enough, we do not need LSN
(including NAT444).

Cheers,
~Chris

> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
>
>
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org