[144326] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Wing)
Thu Sep 8 13:45:20 2011
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>,
"'Leigh Porter'" <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2y5y0r72b.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:44:08 -0700
Cc: 'North American Network Operators' Group' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16 AM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
>
> you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting
> in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were
> heavily pushing nat444 for the last two years suddenly started to say
> "it was not me who pushed nat444, it was him!" as if none of us had a
> memory.
Many of the problems are due to IPv4 address sharing, which will be
problems for A+P, CGN, HTTP proxies, and other address sharing
technologies. RFC6269 discusses most (or all) of those problems.
There are workarounds to those problems, but most are not
pretty. The solution is IPv6.
-d
