Re: NAT444 or ?

[Douglas Otis <dotis () mail-abuse org>]

On 9/1/11 11:52 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Serge Vautour<sergevautour () yahoo ca>  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For IPv6 to work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on 
> > IPv6. That's not there yet. IPv6 deployment to end users is not trivial (end user support, CPE support, etc...). Translation techniques 
> > are generally evil. IPv6->IPv4 still requires 1 IPv4 IP per end user or else you're doing NAT. IPv4->IPv6 (1-1) doesn't 
> > solve our main problem of giving users access to the IPv4 Internet.
> Correct, all content is not there yet... but World IPv6 Day showed
> that Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft and 400+ others are just about
> ready to go.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_IPv6_Day
>
> IPv6->IPv4 does not require 1 to 1, .... any protocol translation is a
> form of NATish things, and stateful NAT64 has many desirable
> properties IF you already do NAT44.  Specifically, it is nice that
> IPv6 flows bypass the NAT .... and as more content becomes  IPv6, NAT
> becomes less and less used.  In this way, unlike NAT44 or NAT444,
> NAT64 has an exit strategy that ends with proper E2E networking with
> IPv6... the technology and economic incentives push the right way
> (more IPv6...)
>
> Have a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146
>
> There are multiple opensource and big vendor (C, J, B, LB guys...)
> implementation of NAT64 / DNS64 ... I have trialed it and plan to
> deploy it, YMMV... It works great for web and email, not so great for
> gaming and Skype.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bpw-pcp-nat-pmp-interworking-00
moves CPE NAT to the ISP tunneled over 192.0.0.0/29.
> > Has anyone deployed NAT444? Can folks share their experiences? Does it really break this many apps? What other options 
> > do we have?
> Yes, expect it to be deployed in places where the access gear can only
> do IPv4 and there is no money or technology available to bring in
> IPv6.
A false economy when support outweigh CPE cost.

-Doug