[137886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Tue Feb 22 03:29:31 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ESU19fGC+X09o5TftySqsD0eifu3Dmu8c1Y88@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 -0600
To: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
>> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
>=20
> I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagree
> that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444. They
> all do state that these problems are present in NAT444, but not that
> it's the only technology/scenario/configuration where you might find
> them.
Let's at least agree that the text isn't precise. I've had a large =
number of conversations in which relatively intelligent people advocated =
other (non-NAT444) scenarios involving CGN, built on the premise that =
NAT444 is broken and draft-donley-nat444-impacts is evidence. Either =
the draft is perfectly clear and all of these people are stupid, or the =
draft is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally).
> More importantly, I am unsure the point of this argument. Are you
> trying to say that the items listed as broken in the draft are not
> actually broken? Because in my experience they are. IMHO, the fact
> that they are also broken in other (similar) scenarios is not evidence
> that they are not broken in this one. On the contrary, this scenario
> seems to be evidence to the brokenness in the others (until we get a
> chance to test and document them all - are you volunteering? ;).
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6 =
is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position =
seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating =
production networks. But, regardless, if I were to accept this position =
then I might also agree that it doesn't matter whether or not =
draft-donley-nat444-impacts is misleading.
On the contrary: While I emphatically agree that IPv6 is the path =
forward, I don't accept the notion that IPv4 no longer matters. IPv4 is =
the present-day Internet, and IPv4 connectivity is demanded by =
present-day paying customers - you don't burn the bridge until *after* =
you've crossed it. Further, given that IPv4 does matter yet has an =
exhausted address supply, there exists a need for IPv4 address sharing =
technology. Fundamentally, this means that we need to discuss and =
engineer the best possible address sharing technology. It may never be =
as good as native end-to-end IPv6, but sub-optimal is not the same thing =
as "broken" as others have claimed, and sub-optimal might be acceptable =
if it's the only alternative.
Of course, we can also rely on an IPv4 address market to avoid NAT in =
the more sensitive situations (i.e. situations with more sensitive =
users). But that's a different conversation.
Cheers,
-Benson
