[137245] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Thu Feb 10 09:37:58 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D532AEA.2090505@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:36:54 -0600
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 9, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift =
upgrade
>> schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade =
NAT.
>=20
> ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native =
v6.
DS-lite is still CGN.
You may be thinking of the comparison versus NAT444 described in =
draft-donley-nat444-impacts =
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donley-nat444-impacts/). But =
you should read the criticisms of that draft on the BEHAVE mailing list, =
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09027.html and =
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09030.html.
Cheers,
-Benson
