On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote: >> CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find >> unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the >> driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6. > > don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less > ugly than CGN. > > Nick >
Well, IMHO, it’s slightly less ugly. CGN will usually be a second layer of NAT imposed on an already NAT’d connection. At least with NAT64, you’re usually dealing with a single layer of translation. Owen
