Re: NAT444 or ?

On Friday, September 09, 2011 01:44:08 AM Dan Wing wrote:

Many of the problems are due to IPv4 address sharing, which will be problems for A+P, CGN, HTTP proxies, and other address sharing technologies. RFC6269 discusses most (or all) of those problems. There are workarounds to those problems, but most are not pretty. The solution is IPv6.

I do expect some of these workarounds to be vendor and/or platform specific, as more units are deployed and the industry simply can't keep up with the various topologies and customer elasticities ISP's have to maintain. We're already seeing evidence of this as we discuss NAT64 options with vendors, particularly in the area of scale and customer experience perceptions. Mark.