[136066] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jan 31 23:41:44 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ETaMyoLROe761MQ0FT_RikAM3W+oUR_DjoNiT@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:29:16 -0800
To: Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, carlos@lacnic.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
>> 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
>>
>> There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about
>> their plans for establishing connectivity with IPv6; so they can
>> commmunicate with IPv6-only hosts that will begin to emerge
>> later.
>>
>
> What organizations (eye networks) will do is layer NAT till the cows come
> home for some years to come. Buckle up!
>
> -Jack Carrozzo
All of the eye networks that have looked at this have realized the following
things that you apparently have not:
1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one subscriber)
doesn't help.
2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current NAT44.
3. Users subjected to this environment after experiencing the
limited brokenness of NAT44 or full access to the internet
will not be happy.
4. Maintaining NAT444 environments will be a support headache
and a costly arms race of deployments and management.
5. IPv6 will cost a lot less than NAT444 as soon as they can
get their subscribers fully deployed and is a much more
desirable alternative.
Owen
