[137829] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Feb 20 12:09:02 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <857967.14970.qm@web114719.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:08:43 -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 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
>> question.
> Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it =
is a required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access the IPv4 =
domain? That'll go down real well with end-users and really cut down on =
the operational and support issues enumerated earlier.
>=20
> - Zed
>=20
>=20
>=20
Again, I think that it is unfixable and that development efforts are =
better focused
on getting the IPv4 only hosts onto IPv6 as that IS a workable solution =
to the problem
where NAT444 is an awful hack made worse by layering.
IPv6 deployment is the only thing that will cut down on the operational =
and support
issues enumerated. Trying to fix NAT444 is like trying to use more gas =
to get yourself
out of the mud in a 2-wheel drive automobile. If you take a limited =
view, you might
think that pushing harder will help, but, in reality, you're just =
digging a deeper hole.
Owen
