[134451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Thu Jan 6 01:09:21 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110106055559.9C9F687D1C9@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:08:35 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <AANLkTikS_EnACm2BfYx=3DB=3DM=3DkhejAqJKvdbwX2hwmqHh@mail.gmai=
l.com>, Came
> ron Byrne writes:
>> As long as dual-stack is around, the app vendors don't have to move
>> and network guys have to dream up hacks to support these legacy apps
>> (CGN ....).
>
> NAT64 is CGN expecially when it is being implemented by the cellular
> carriers.
>
Agreed. And, the NAT44 that 99% of my customer use to today is also a CGN.
It's status quo, all v4 flows require state in my network, NAT44 or NAT64.
But, NAT64 has an exit strategy. With every new AAAA that comes out,
that is one less destination requiring state in my network.
Cameron
>> Cameron
>>
>> >
>> > Matthew Kaufman
>> >
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 INTERNET: marka@is=
c.org
>
