On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:d...@cluenet.de] >> Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38 >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ? >> >> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Hm, I fail to find relevant slides discussing that. Could you please >> point us to those? >> >> I'm looking at http://meetings.apnic.net/32 > > There is a lot in the IPv6 plenary sessions: > > http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/ipv6 > > This is what I am looking at right now. Randy makes some good comments in > those sessions. I have not found anything yet, but I am only on session 3, > pertaining specifically to issues around NAT444.
It may not be what Randy was referring to above, but as part of that program at APNIC32 I reported on the failure rate I am measuring for Teredo. I'm not sure its all in the slides I was using, but what I was trying to say was that STUN is simply terrible at reliably negotiating a NAT. I was then wondering what pixie dust CGNs were going to use that would have any impact on the ~50% connection failure rate I'm observing in Teredo. And if there is no such thing as pixie dust (damn!) I was then wondering if NATs are effectively unuseable if you want anything fancier than 1:1 TCP connections (like multi-user games, for example). After all, a 50% connection failure rate for STUN is hardly encouraging news for a CGN deployer if your basic objective is not to annoy your customers. regards, Geoff
