[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT444 or ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at 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
- Follow-Ups:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)
- References:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: sergevautour at yahoo.ca (Serge Vautour)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: arturo.servin at gmail.com (Arturo Servin)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)