NAT444 or ?
dwing at cisco.com
Thu Sep 8 17:44:08 UTC 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16 AM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
> > 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
Many of the problems are due to IPv4 address sharing, which will be
problems for A+P, CGN, HTTP proxies, and other address sharing
technologies. RFC6269 discusses most (or all) of those problems.
There are workarounds to those problems, but most are not
pretty. The solution is IPv6.
More information about the NANOG