[136203] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 1 18:24:10 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <6DF2D154-7AD0-4C9B-BE62-197711E21E80@queuefull.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:16:58 -0800
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>=20
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address =
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
>>=20
>> It does not solve any other problem(s).
>=20
> In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other =
problems in an optimal way.
>=20
> Also, NAT44 implies address oversubscription while NAT66 doesn't =
necessarily have such a requirement.
>=20
> Not that I love NAT66, but let's at least be honest about it.
>=20
> Cheers,
> -Benson
Perhaps a better way to put it is:
There are better solutions in IPv6 to any of the problems NAT44 is =
alleged to solve, regardless of whether you are talking about overloaded =
NAT44 (which some people refer to as PAT) or any other form of NAT.
Owen
