[136116] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Tue Feb 1 09:54:56 2011
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D481DC4.4060606@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:53:59 -0500
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: carlos@lacnic.net, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 1/31/2011 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one =
subscriber)
>> doesn't help.
> yep
>>=20
>> 2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current =
NAT44.
>>=20
> To be honest, ds-lite, despite being single layer still breaks most =
things that a NAT44 with upnp won't.
>=20
>> 3. Users subjected to this environment after experiencing =
the
>> limited brokenness of NAT44 or full access to the =
internet
>> will not be happy.
> Neither would an engineer, which is why we have real IPs at our house. =
:)
>> 4. Maintaining NAT444 environments will be a support =
headache
>> and a costly arms race of deployments and management.
> Even maintaining dual stack is costly. NAT444 just makes it worse.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Yep. Once the NSPs get their stuff done and we have decent routing =
paths, the eyeballs will either already be done or quickly behind them, =
and then the content can start switching over without the fears they =
currently have.
Honestly, if you can't get native wholesale IP, you are buying from the =
wrong carriers.
- Jared=
