[123384] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Fri Mar 5 17:08:54 2010
In-Reply-To: <D5A2AE2A-6EE4-49E1-8C14-ED8D4D3C9A85@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:08:26 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: Suzanne Woolf <woolf@isc.org>, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com,
nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled ou=
t -
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing arou=
nd
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 it when it no longer works for her - but the ISP sees her as=
a
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 statistically anomaly.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 I would argue that the right/correct place for such translat=
ion
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 technology is very close to the edge - in much the same way =
as
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 NAT technology is roughl an "edge" technology. =A0(ok - it u=
sed to be but w/
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 CGN .. its clearly moved.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 we -need- the technologies - but only for a while. =A0otherw=
ise they
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 become a drug that we are dependent on. and we will be stuck=
on the
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 dual-stack plateau for a much longer time that we should.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 imho of coure ... YM (and business models) MV
>>
> Bill,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0While the DS-LIte mechanism does involve moving the NAT
> towards the Core instead of leaving it at the edge, the advantage
> is that you can route around it very easily as an end-user. =A0Every
> thing the end user sends to an IPv6 destination bypasses the NAT
> box completely and only IPv4 is afflicted.
NAT64/DNS64 is the same way, it gracefully drops out of the network as
more and more content provides publish their own AAAA records. Most
mobile providers today do NAT44, so NAT64 from an IPv6-only host
(phones) is very appealing and familiar The day we switch from NAT44
to NAT64 (it's not a flag day, one new device model at a time), we
will have a substantial NET savings in NAT state since all the IPv6
content folks with AAAA will no longer have their content hobbled by
the NAT44 that exists today. Mobile network operator will begin to see
the light at the end of the NATx(x|y) tunnel. The end of the NAT
tunnel means lower cost and higher availability.
And once again, the content folks passing IPv4 literals may have
heart burn since IPv6-only won't initiate a connection to an IPv4
literal address embedded in HTML / XML .... DNS64 helps with this in
the normal FQDN case, but passing IPv4 literals breaks the model and
communications fails.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I think that will be fairly easy to deprecate over time vs=
. many
> many edge-NATs and layers of NATs near the edge.
>
> Owen
>
>
