Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

Martin Millnert millnert at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 15:21:38 UTC 2011


On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In message <4DF053AA.50400 at axu.tm>, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
>> > Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
>> > NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
>> > basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think
>> > that NAT64 is as bad as other LSNs and here's why:

My statement is that a *pure* ipv6-only network, in the sense you have
0 NAT:ed reachability to the IPv4 Internet, will only attract people
like me. :)

> All good and accurate info. I would just restate that nat64 unlike nat444
> does not need to be "on path", this is what drives its improved scaling over
> nat444.
> Also, unlike ds-lite, nat64 works without any special client, such as the b4
> function in the ds-lite architecture. Any fully functional ipv6 system such
> as win7 can work out of the box (ipv4 only apps being the exception)
> Finally, ds-lite and nat444 are just crutches for ipv4. Nat64 pushes ipv6 by
> making ipv6 end to end and forcing applications to be AF agnostic .... as
> where the others enable ipv4 without any backpressure.

You are absolutely correct here.

The proper solution is indeed to backtrack from the end-goal, which is
to have only one stack in the network.


More information about the NANOG mailing list