Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net>]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net> wrote:
>
> > Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web.  That doesn't make it accurate to claim that the web is broken, 
> > and it's particularly weak support for claims that email would work better.
>
> I don't think that's a great analogy. NAT444 is CGN, the web is not
> DNS. If I say I can chop down a tree with a red ax, can you disprove
> that by saying that you can chop it down with any color ax?

I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)  But my point remains:  NAT444 is a 
deployment scenario, which includes a CGN element.  Other deployment scenarios that also include a CGN element will 
have the same issues, and perhaps more.  And, indeed, a number of "transition" (i.e. exhaustion) scenarios include a 
CGN.  Thus it is appropriate to focus on the root of the problem (CGN) rather than pointing at just one scenario that 
leverages it.

So...  I agree that CGN is painful, relative to native connectivity and even relative to CPE-based NAT44.  But I'd like 
to understand why NAT444 is better or worse than other CGN-based scenarios, before I agree with that conclusion.


> If we get dual v4+v6 connectivity quickly enough, we do not need LSN
> (including NAT444).

Amen, brother.  I guess I'm just pessimistic about the definition of "quickly" versus operationally realistic 
timeframes.

Cheers,
-Benson