Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net>]

On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> > DS-lite is still CGN.
>
> It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces because of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that 
> you have IPv6 connectivity. NAT444 makes no such assertion.

DS-lite *uses* IPv6 connectivity, it doesn't provide it.  That's like saying 6rd or 6to4 "guarantees you have IPv4 
connectivity".

As for NAT444 (or double-NAT):  One could just as easily deploy DS-lite with a NAT444 configuration.  Or deploy CGN 
without NAT444 (e.g. CGN44, by managing subnets delegated to each subscriber).  The two topics are related but separate.

In terms of CGN44 versus NAT444, I'd like to see evidence of something that breaks in NAT444 but not CGN44.  People 
seem to have a gut expectation that this is the case, and I'm open to the possibility.  But testing aimed at 
demonstrating that breakage hasn't been very scientific, as discussed in the URLs I posted with my previous message.

Cheers,
-Benson