On 26/nov/2013, at 10:31, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > Which uses more IPv4 addresses, a traditional IPv4 NAT or 464xlat? At the end > of the day the PLAT still has to talk to the v4 net. > > Oh, I forgot - the answer to that question is that the traditional IPv4 NAT > uses much more IPv4 space. This is because the traditional IPv4 NAT needs > private IP addresses to number the endpoints. > > If you have fewer than 10M subscribers this might not matter, but if you're, > say, a mobile operator with 50M subscribers, you either number endpoints > using RIR space, or you number them with bogon space, or you have to use > overlapping RFC1918 realms. RIR space is about to run out. Bogon space is > risky, and overlapping RFC1918 is painful for operations and causes > application breakage. Well, I understand that there is value in moving towards an IPv6-only backbone, but, even in that case, I find it safer to provide IPv4 via DS-Lite rather than via 464xLAT. In my view, translating between different IP versions can only produce more problems. -- Marco Sommani Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Via Giuseppe Moruzzi 1 56124 Pisa - Italia work: +390506212127 mobile: +393487981019 fax: +390503158327 mailto:[email protected]
