Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>]

> CGN-like box. Yes, it's stateless. Doesn't matter, I still need to flow
> traffic through a dedicated box because MAP won't be implemented in my
> regular routers (if you know otherwise, please speak up).

Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right that
MAP wouldn't have been as beneficial as claimed.

> It's still NAT.

Yes, assuming MAP-T.
No, assuming, MAP-E




Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 6:01 AM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva () cisco com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
> > Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP
> > doesn't require any CGN that causes the SP network to put up with the
> > NAT state. This means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no
> > longer apply.
>
> For me as an operator, MAP is most likely going to be implemented in a
> CGN-like box. Yes, it's stateless. Doesn't matter, I still need to flow
> traffic through a dedicated box because MAP won't be implemented in my
> regular routers (if you know otherwise, please speak up).
>
> > MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
> > access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its internet
> > customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
>
> It's still NAT.
>
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se