[arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)
dwing at cisco.com
Mon Feb 21 14:37:50 CST 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: Benson Schliesser
> Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser
> <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
> > If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests
> otherwise, I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the
> possibility that NAT444 breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but
> I haven't found any valid evidence of this.
> In case you have not already found this:
That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
For details, see my comments at
and see Reinaldo Penno's comments at
> > Regardless, I think we can agree that IPv6 is the way to avoid NAT-
> related growing pains. We've known this for a long time.
> > Cheers,
> > -Benson
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the NANOG