owen at delong.com
Tue Mar 25 00:47:28 UTC 2014
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
> On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>> CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
>> unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
>> driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
> don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
> ugly than CGN.
Well, IMHO, it’s slightly less ugly.
CGN will usually be a second layer of NAT imposed on an already NAT’d connection.
At least with NAT64, you’re usually dealing with a single layer of translation.
More information about the NANOG