[162565] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Ross)
Thu Apr 25 13:36:53 2013
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <51796809.4010103@mtcc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
>>> will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
>>
>> Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
>
> I suppose that the way to frame this as: does it require the ISP to
> carry flow statefulness in their network in places where they didn't
> have to before. That to my mind is the big hit.
NAT64 sure does. Take a look at MAP and be your own judge of weather it
counts or not.
> I was going to say that NAT64 could be helpful, but thought better of it
> because it may have its own set of issues. For example, are all of the
> resources *within* the ISP v6 available?
Um, yes, why wouldn't they be?
> They may be a part of the problem as well as a part of the solution too.
> I would think that just the prospect of having a less expensive/complex
> infrastructure would be appealing as v6 adoption ramps up, and gives
> ISP's an incentive to give the laggards an incentive.
It's no longer clear to me what your problem statement is. If the problem
is that you want something that does NATish things so that v4 still works,
but v6 works better, I think NAT64 is worthy of your scrutiny.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
