[162288] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rajiv Asati (rajiva))
Mon Apr 8 14:20:15 2013
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 18:19:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1304081159420.23668@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> CGN-like box. Yes, it's stateless. Doesn't matter, I still need to flow
> traffic through a dedicated box because MAP won't be implemented in my
> regular routers (if you know otherwise, please speak up).
Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right that
MAP wouldn't have been as beneficial as claimed.
> It's still NAT.
Yes, assuming MAP-T.
No, assuming, MAP-E
Cheers,
Rajiv
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 6:01 AM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
>> Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP
>> doesn't require any CGN that causes the SP network to put up with the
>> NAT state. This means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no
>> longer apply.
>
>For me as an operator, MAP is most likely going to be implemented in a
>CGN-like box. Yes, it's stateless. Doesn't matter, I still need to flow
>traffic through a dedicated box because MAP won't be implemented in my
>regular routers (if you know otherwise, please speak up).
>
>> MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
>> access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its internet
>> customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
>
>It's still NAT.
>
>--=20
>Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
