> -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@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