Hi, On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: >> In message <[email protected]>, Aleksi Suhonen writes: >> > Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade >> > NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are >> > basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think >> > that NAT64 is as bad as other LSNs and here's why:
My statement is that a *pure* ipv6-only network, in the sense you have 0 NAT:ed reachability to the IPv4 Internet, will only attract people like me. :) > All good and accurate info. I would just restate that nat64 unlike nat444 > does not need to be "on path", this is what drives its improved scaling over > nat444. > > Also, unlike ds-lite, nat64 works without any special client, such as the b4 > function in the ds-lite architecture. Any fully functional ipv6 system such > as win7 can work out of the box (ipv4 only apps being the exception) > > Finally, ds-lite and nat444 are just crutches for ipv4. Nat64 pushes ipv6 by > making ipv6 end to end and forcing applications to be AF agnostic .... as > where the others enable ipv4 without any backpressure. You are absolutely correct here. The proper solution is indeed to backtrack from the end-goal, which is to have only one stack in the network. Thanks, Martin
