NAT444 or ?

Wed Sep 7 16:41:43 UTC 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr at cluenet.de]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
> 
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
> >
> > you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic
> meeting
> > in busan.  real mesurements.  sufficiently scary that people who were
> > heavily pushing nat444 for the last two years suddenly started to say
> > "it was not me who pushed nat444, it was him!"  as if none of us had
> a
> > memory.
> 
> Hm, I fail to find relevant slides discussing that. Could you please
> point us to those?
> 
> I'm looking at http://meetings.apnic.net/32
> 
> Best regards,
> Daniel

There is a lot in the IPv6 plenary sessions:

http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/ipv6

This is what I am looking at right now. Randy makes some good comments in those sessions. I have not found anything yet, but I am only on session 3, pertaining specifically to issues around NAT444.

I would be looking for issues such as implementing ALGs on both NAT devices, ALG scaling on LSN boxes and issues surrounding application compatibility. I'm also looking at NAT logging for law enforcement issues. 

Is there anything planned for the next NANOG around these issues?

--
Leigh

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________