[137258] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Thu Feb 10 11:06:57 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D5409F4.4070907@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:05:54 -0600
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>,
NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Cc: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> DS-lite is still CGN.
>=20
> It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces =
because of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that you have IPv6 =
connectivity. NAT444 makes no such assertion.
DS-lite *uses* IPv6 connectivity, it doesn't provide it. That's like =
saying 6rd or 6to4 "guarantees you have IPv4 connectivity".
As for NAT444 (or double-NAT): One could just as easily deploy DS-lite =
with a NAT444 configuration. Or deploy CGN without NAT444 (e.g. CGN44, =
by managing subnets delegated to each subscriber). The two topics are =
related but separate.
In terms of CGN44 versus NAT444, I'd like to see evidence of something =
that breaks in NAT444 but not CGN44. People seem to have a gut =
expectation that this is the case, and I'm open to the possibility. But =
testing aimed at demonstrating that breakage hasn't been very =
scientific, as discussed in the URLs I posted with my previous message.
Cheers,
-Benson
