[137706] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Feb 18 09:29:26 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <921881.85954.qm@web114701.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:27:12 -0800
To: Zed Usser <zzuser@yahoo.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>=20
>> In case you have not already found this:=20
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01=20
>=20
> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG =
list.
>=20
> "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to =
analyze NAT444, but it really analyzes what fails when two problems =
occur: (a) port forwarding isn't configured and (b) UPnP is unavailable =
or is broken. Several architectures share those two problems:
>=20
> * NAT444 (NAPT44 in the home + NAPT44 in the carrier's network)
> * LSN (NAPT44 in the carrier's network, without a NAPT44 in the home)
> * DS-Lite (which is an LSN / NAPT44 in the carrier's network)
> * stateful NAT64"
>=20
I don't think the draft makes any attempt to claim that the problems are =
unique to NAT444, so, the above, while
technically accurate isn't particulrarly meaningful.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09027.html
>=20
> Be that as it may and putting my devil's advocate hat on, aren't the =
unintended consequences of NAT444 a net win for ISPs? :)
>=20
I guess that depends on whether you like having customers or not.
> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook, =
Youtube,...), but:
> - Less torrenting
> - Less Netflix watching
> - Less FTP downloads
> - Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
>=20
> You might take a hit on online gaming, but what else is there not to =
love? :)
>=20
+ More support phone calls
+ More unhappy customers
+ More cancellations
+ Less revenue
+ More costs
+ CALEA joy
> Your sales department / helpdesk might have a bit of hassle of trying =
to undestand / explain this new Intertubes to the suck^H^H^H^Hcustomers, =
but most of them won't care either way.
>=20
An interesting theory.
> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to =
be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6 domains in all foreseeable =
futures? If so, aren't we going to have to deal with these issues in any =
case?
>=20
No, we need to move forward with IPv6 on all levels in order to reduce =
the need for these solutions.
Joining the IPv4/IPv6 domains doesn't work out all that well and a =
dependency on doing so is
broken in a number of ways, many of which are documented in the draft.
Owen
