NAT444 or ?

Serge Vautour sergevautour at yahoo.ca
Thu Sep 1 13:36:37 CDT 2011


Hello,

Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For IPv6 to work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on IPv6. That's not there yet. IPv6 deployment to end users is not trivial (end user support, CPE support, etc...). Translation techniques are generally evil. IPv6->IPv4 still requires 1 IPv4 IP per end user or else you're doing NAT. IPv4->IPv6 (1-1) doesn't solve our main problem of giving users access to the IPv4 Internet.


I expect like most companies we're faced with having to extend the life of IPv4 since our users will continue to want access to the IPv4 content. Doing that by giving them an IPv6 address is not very feasible yet for many reasons. NAT444 seems like the only solution available while we slowly transition over to IPv6 over the next 20 years. Based on the this RFC, NAT444 breaks a lot of applications!

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01

Has anyone deployed NAT444? Can folks share their experiences? Does it really break this many apps? What other options do we have? 


Thanks,
Serge



More information about the NANOG mailing list