Problems with removing NAT from a network

Mon Jan 10 06:24:06 UTC 2011

On Jan 9, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:

> On 01/09/2011 07:46 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 1/8/2011 3:16 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Mr. Kaufman,
>>> 
>>> In the upcoming years, we will have no IPv6 in some places and badly
>>> performing IPv4 (CGN, etc.) with working IPv6 in others.
>> Right. So we're discussing just how "badly performing" the IPv4 can be
>> and still be acceptable as "access to the IPv4 Internet for your
>> customers".
>> 
>> I am arguing that CGN (NAT44 to get additional IPv4 to dual-stack)
>> doesn't break nearly as much as NAT64/DNS64 does, and that in fact
>> NAT64/DNS64 breaks *so much* that you probably can't/shouldn't sell it
>> to your customers as "access to the IPv4 Internet".
>> 
> 
> I think there will be CGN's and NAT64/DNS64 which will add extra latency
> and may be overloaded at times. But I also currently still see a
> fragmented IPv6 Internet where not everyone can reach everyone. So
> currently IPv6 isn't ready and IPv4 is still working, but for how long ?
> 
We're trying to do everything we can to resolve the fragmentation.
We have offered on numerous occasions to peer with both of the
providers that are currently segmented from our ASN (6939), going
even so far as baking a cake for Cogent (AS174).

Our attempts to resolve this continue to this day and we remain willing
to peer with anyone that is able to reach us physically.

We have an aggressively open peering policy.

If you are segmented from our network, we encourage you to either
peer directly with us, encourage your upstream(s) to peer with us,
or, connect to us with a fee BGP tunnel for the time being. If anyone
is having trouble getting "unsegmented" from AS6939, they are
welcome to send me email and I will make sure we do whatever
we can to assist in resolving the matter.

Owen