nanog mailing list archives

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


From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:08:43 -0800


On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:

--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
question.
 Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a required functionality for IPv6-only hosts 
to access the IPv4 domain? That'll go down real well with end-users and really cut down on the operational and 
support issues enumerated earlier.

- Zed



Again, I think that it is unfixable and that development efforts are better focused
on getting the IPv4 only hosts onto IPv6 as that IS a workable solution to the problem
where NAT444 is an awful hack made worse by layering.

IPv6 deployment is the only thing that will cut down on the operational and support
issues enumerated. Trying to fix NAT444 is like trying to use more gas to get yourself
out of the mud in a 2-wheel drive automobile. If you take a limited view, you might
think that pushing harder will help, but, in reality, you're just digging a deeper hole.

Owen



Current thread: