[134440] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Thu Jan 6 00:26:02 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110106043110.21C96876D21@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 23:25:28 -0600
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
> Which is one of the reasons why DS-lite is a better solution for
> providing legacy access to the IPv4 Internet than NAT64/DNS64.
> DS-lite only breaks what NAT44 breaks. DS-lite doesn't break new
> things.
>=20
Or just run a dual-stack network, with centralized NAT44, and avoid the =
headache of tunneling. If you're going to run two protocol families on =
the end host, and deal with the issues that causes, why require =
tunneling to make it work? Is it so hard to forward IPv4 packets =
natively?
Cheers,
-Benson
