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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sun Feb 20 11:08:43 CST 2011


On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:

> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
>> question.
>  Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access the IPv4 domain? That'll go down real well with end-users and really cut down on the operational and support issues enumerated earlier.
> 
> - Zed
> 
> 
> 
Again, I think that it is unfixable and that development efforts are better focused
on getting the IPv4 only hosts onto IPv6 as that IS a workable solution to the problem
where NAT444 is an awful hack made worse by layering.

IPv6 deployment is the only thing that will cut down on the operational and support
issues enumerated. Trying to fix NAT444 is like trying to use more gas to get yourself
out of the mud in a 2-wheel drive automobile. If you take a limited view, you might
think that pushing harder will help, but, in reality, you're just digging a deeper hole.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list