Problems with removing NAT from a network

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 00:08:35 CST 2011


On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <AANLkTikS_EnACm2BfYx=B=M=khejAqJKvdbwX2hwmqHh at mail.gmail.com>, Came
> ron Byrne writes:
>> As long as dual-stack is around, the app vendors don't have to move
>> and network guys have to dream up hacks to support these legacy apps
>> (CGN ....).
>
> NAT64 is CGN expecially when it is being implemented by the cellular
> carriers.
>

Agreed.  And, the NAT44 that 99% of my customer use to today is also a CGN.

It's status quo, all v4 flows require state in my network, NAT44 or NAT64.

But, NAT64 has an exit strategy.  With every new AAAA that comes out,
that is one less destination requiring state in my network.

Cameron


>> Cameron
>>
>> >
>> > Matthew Kaufman
>> >
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list