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

["Dan Wing" <dwing () cisco com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann () gmail com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:17 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Owen DeLong; Benson Schliesser; NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
> naysayer...)
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing <dwing () cisco com> wrote:
>
> > Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
> > are specific to NAT444.  Which is untrue.
>
> I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagree
> that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444. They
> all do state that these problems are present in NAT444, but not that
> it's the only technology/scenario/configuration where you might find
> them.
>
> More importantly, I am unsure the point of this argument.

My point is that:  NAT breaks things, but NAT444 is /not/ the only 
case where breakage occurs.

> Are you
> trying to say that the items listed as broken in the draft are not
> actually broken? Because in my experience they are. IMHO, the fact
> that they are also broken in other (similar) scenarios is not evidence
> that they are not broken in this one. On the contrary, this scenario
> seems to be evidence to the brokenness in the others (until we get a
> chance to test and document them all - are you volunteering? ;).

Vendor test results don't carry much value.

The authors of draft-donley-nat444-impacts did testing, and
I sincerely hope will publish results that split the impacts of
access bandwidth starvation from home NAT from CGN from NAT444.

-d


> Cheers,
> ~Chris
>
>
> > -d
>
>
>
>
> --
> @ChrisGrundemann
> weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
> www.burningwiththebush.com
> www.theIPv6experts.net
> www.coisoc.org