RE: NAT444 or ?

["Dan Wing" <dwing () cisco com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy () psg com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16 AM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> > 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.

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.

-d