Brian J. Murrell wrote:
You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64.
Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
Are you saying ICMP and DNS nasty? As DNS protocol is still actively maintained, keeping NAT gateways transparent to DNS is not easy. Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
I'm a fan of these solutions that (only) use NAT44 in the CPE as this is exactly what they're currently doing, and the CPE vendors have already "solved" the problem of application support (SIP, FTP etc.) at least as far as the end-user is concerned.
It's better to modify NAT to preserve the end to end transparency. See draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00 for details. JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as SonyPlaystation Network will put those addresses in the black list, so you need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the addresses dynamically.
A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be used for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.
Furthermore, if some users need less ports than others, you "infra-utilize" those addresses,
Users needing more ports should pay more money and share an IP address with smaller number of users.
which again is not the case for 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets automatically as many ports as he needs at every moment.
Unless all the ports are used up. Thus, even with dynamic port assignment, users needing more ports should pay more money and share an IP address with smaller number of users. Masataka Ohta