[arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)
owen at delong.com
Mon Feb 21 15:58:45 EST 2011
On Feb 21, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at 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
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser
>> <bensons at 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:
> 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
> and see Reinaldo Penno's comments at
The document describes problems that will exist in NAT444 environments.
It does not state that these problems would be specific to NAT444, but,
NAT444 will cause or exacerbate each of the problems described.
Yes, the problems may have other underlying root causes, but, they
will all be present in a NAT444 environment, even if they were not
present in the same environment prior to deployment of NAT444.
Let me put it this way...
IPv4 has a TITANIC lack of numeric addresses and has been
stretched beyond its limits for some time now.
IPv6 is a life boat.
NAT is a seat cushion used for floatation.
NAT444 (and other NAT-based extensions) are deck chairs.
Attempting to improve them beyond their current states is
an effort to rearrange the deck chairs.
More information about the ARIN-PPML