Hi, On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
In message <4DF053AA.50400@axu.tm>, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think that NAT64 is as bad as other LSNs and here's why:
My statement is that a *pure* ipv6-only network, in the sense you have 0 NAT:ed reachability to the IPv4 Internet, will only attract people like me. :)
All good and accurate info. I would just restate that nat64 unlike nat444 does not need to be "on path", this is what drives its improved scaling over nat444.
Also, unlike ds-lite, nat64 works without any special client, such as the b4 function in the ds-lite architecture. Any fully functional ipv6 system such as win7 can work out of the box (ipv4 only apps being the exception)
Finally, ds-lite and nat444 are just crutches for ipv4. Nat64 pushes ipv6 by making ipv6 end to end and forcing applications to be AF agnostic .... as where the others enable ipv4 without any backpressure.
You are absolutely correct here. The proper solution is indeed to backtrack from the end-goal, which is to have only one stack in the network. Thanks, Martin