Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-10 Thread Daniel Roesen
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Jeff Hartley wrote: We've been using two workarounds: 1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND 9.8; one DNS64 and the other DNS6). Have the client provisioning system assign the appropriate DNS server IPs (dual-stack to anycast set 1, v6-only to anycast

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-10 Thread Daniel Roesen
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:29:47AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: DS-lite and NAT444 don't break existing applications. They do, to different degrees. There is plenty of evidence for that. Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives Pick your poison. :-) Best regards,

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Mark Andrews
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes: Hello, 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

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Cameron Byrne
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes: Hello, 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

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Jeff Hartley
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes: Hello, Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade NATs (CGN)

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Martin Millnert
Hi, On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, 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

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Daniel Roesen
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote: Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Jeff Hartley
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2. We still need to find some solution to that problem. We've been using two workarounds: 1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND

Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-09 Thread Mark Andrews
In message banlktimkba5hy3samtzb6w51mghgxqm...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne writes: --000e0ce0b4eaf1531104a5486aed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes: Hello,

Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

2011-06-08 Thread Aleksi Suhonen
Hello, 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: NAT64 scales much