On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were heavily pushing nat444 for the last two years suddenly started to say "it was not me who pushed nat444, it was him!" as if none of us had a memory.
Hm, I fail to find relevant slides discussing that. Could you please point us to those?
I'm looking at http://meetings.apnic.net/32
There is a lot in the IPv6 plenary sessions:
http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/ipv6
This is what I am looking at right now. Randy makes some good comments in those sessions. I have not found anything yet, but I am only on session 3, pertaining specifically to issues around NAT444.
It may not be what Randy was referring to above, but as part of that program at APNIC32 I reported on the failure rate I am measuring for Teredo. I'm not sure its all in the slides I was using, but what I was trying to say was that STUN is simply terrible at reliably negotiating a NAT. I was then wondering what pixie dust CGNs were going to use that would have any impact on the ~50% connection failure rate I'm observing in Teredo. And if there is no such thing as pixie dust (damn!) I was then wondering if NATs are effectively unuseable if you want anything fancier than 1:1 TCP connections (like multi-user games, for example). After all, a 50% connection failure rate for STUN is hardly encouraging news for a CGN deployer if your basic objective is not to annoy your customers. regards, Geoff