On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 1/31/2011 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> 1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one subscriber) >> doesn't help. > yep >> >> 2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current NAT44. >> > To be honest, ds-lite, despite being single layer still breaks most things > that a NAT44 with upnp won't. > >> 3. Users subjected to this environment after experiencing the >> limited brokenness of NAT44 or full access to the internet >> will not be happy. > Neither would an engineer, which is why we have real IPs at our house. :) >> 4. Maintaining NAT444 environments will be a support headache >> and a costly arms race of deployments and management. > Even maintaining dual stack is costly. NAT444 just makes it worse. >> >> 5. IPv6 will cost a lot less than NAT444 as soon as they can >> get their subscribers fully deployed and is a much more >> desirable alternative. > > Yep. Once the NSPs get their stuff done and we have decent routing paths, the > eyeballs will either already be done or quickly behind them, and then the > content can start switching over without the fears they currently have.
Honestly, if you can't get native wholesale IP, you are buying from the wrong carriers. - Jared
