[112097] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Thu Feb 19 06:07:36 2009
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Kevin Oberman'" <oberman@es.net>,
"Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090217213004.281A51CC09@ptavv.es.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:07:29 -0600
Cc: 'Carl Rosevear' <Carl.Rosevear@demandmedia.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The really scary thing is that deploying carrier-grade NAT might be cheaper
to the service provider than rolling IPv6 to its residential subscribers.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:oberman@es.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:30 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: 'Carl Rosevear'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion
<snip>
The big iron folks are proposing something called "Carrier Grade
NAT". This one REALLY frightens me, but I understand a couple of hardware
manufacturers are planning on building such a monster. It might actually
work, but the amount of state carried strikes me as in invitation to
disaster. There was a draft on CNG, but it expired last month. A copy is
still available at:
http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-nishitani-cgn-00.txt
Also, a proposal for a different approach is at:
http://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560 (PDF)
If you are really concerned about where we go whan v4 address space is
exhausted, I strongly urge you to look at all of these issues.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
