Re: NAT444 or ?

[Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>]

        NAT444 alone is not enough.

        You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite.

        Whilst you still have global v4, use it. The best is to deploy dual-stack, but that won't last for too long.

Regards,
as-



On 1 Sep 2011, at 15:36, Serge Vautour 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.
>
>
> I expect like most companies we're faced with having to extend the life of IPv4 since our users will continue to want 
> access to the IPv4 content. Doing that by giving them an IPv6 address is not very feasible yet for many reasons. 
> NAT444 seems like the only solution available while we slowly transition over to IPv6 over the next 20 years. Based 
> on the this RFC, NAT444 breaks a lot of applications!
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
>
> Has anyone deployed NAT444? Can folks share their experiences? Does it really break this many apps? What other 
> options do we have? 
>
>
> Thanks,
> Serge