-----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Grundemann Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM To: Benson Schliesser Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise, I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444 breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't found any valid evidence of this.
In case you have not already found this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44 with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN. For details, see my comments at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09027.html and see Reinaldo Penno's comments at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09030.html -d
Cheers, ~Chris
Regardless, I think we can agree that IPv6 is the way to avoid NAT-
related growing pains. We've known this for a long time.
Cheers, -Benson
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.