[170167] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 24 21:33:13 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <532E1384.1010209@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:47:28 -0700
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>> CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to =
find
>> unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be =
the
>> driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
>=20
> don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any =
less
> ugly than CGN.
>=20
> Nick
>=20
Well, IMHO, it=92s slightly less ugly.
CGN will usually be a second layer of NAT imposed on an already NAT=92d =
connection.
At least with NAT64, you=92re usually dealing with a single layer of =
translation.
Owen
