[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Fri Jan 21 13:43:19 EST 2011

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:31, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
>> The sunset is built into NAT444 itself, because it breaks stuff:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01. Folks will
>> only do it as long as they have to (and they will have to, regardless
>> of this block being available).
>> ~Chris
>> PS - It is probably not a coincidence that one of the folks who has
>> done a bulk of the research on NAT444 authored this proposal.
> Isn't this basically the same proposal that APNIC turned down and
> referred to IETF who then turned it down as well?  Basically you end up
> with a system in place that allows v4 communications only between places
> in North America and only between operators who choose to deploy it?
> It still doesn't guarantee you will be able to communicate with anyone
> outside of North America.

I believe that you're mistaken. This would be "internal" space and
wouldn't affect "public"/outside communications regardless of
deployment or region.

It allows a NAT444 to look something like this:
[device]-(RFC1918)-[CPE]-(this space)-[CGN]-(Global Addressing)-{Internet}

The idea is to avoid collisions between networks on the LAN and WAN
sides of the CPE when adding a layer of NAT44. By definition this
space should never be routed (and therefor never contribute to
communication with outside networks).

But I could be missing your point..?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list