Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 2/10/2011 10:05 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> DS-lite *uses* IPv6 connectivity, it doesn't provide it.  That's like
> saying 6rd or 6to4 "guarantees you have IPv4 connectivity".

Who in their right mind would feed IPv6 to a CPE, deploy a CPE that 
supports DS-Lite, and NOT give out prefixes?

> 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.

To even determine your public IP address, you must ask someone on the 
other side of the NAT, this applies also when you are doing udp hole 
punches. So what happens when you try and talk to you neighbor? Who's 
going to tell you what you need to know between your NAT and the 
providers NAT? This is one way that NAT444 breaks more than NAT44 (even 
in LSN configurations)

And yes, I find that neighbors do like to play with one another, and 
most LSNs don't support hair pinning translations between customers 
(most NAT in general won't support that).

Jack