On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and
[ arin cesspool removed from cc: as i can not post there anyway ]
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundem...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:17 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: Owen DeLong; Benson Schliesser; NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
naysayer...)
On Mon
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
excuse me!
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating
production networks.
most
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
seems to be most pronounced
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
Seriously, some people will not move until the path they are on is already
burning, which is why they did nothing over the last 5 years despite knowing
that the IANA pool was exhausting much faster than they had wanted to
believe. It took getting
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
excuse me!
Hi, Randy. I didn't mean to deny you exist;
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
excuse me!
On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
Youtube,...), but:
Actually, many facebook and youtube features will also be degraded.
- Less torrenting
-
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM
To: Benson Schliesser
Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
naysayer...)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests
otherwise, I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the
possibility that NAT444
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
of bleep
randy
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:59 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Benson Schliesser'; 'NANOG list'; 'ARIN-PPML
List'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
naysayer
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
of bleep
Running out of
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
question.
Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access the IPv4 domain? That'll
go down real
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
question.
Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
required functionality for IPv6-only hosts
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
Youtube,...), but:
- Less torrenting
- Less Netflix watching
- Less FTP downloads
- Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
You might take a hit on
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not meaningfully
make the situation better for those
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
So, in essence, you are advocating not to
interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
working as it's pretty clear that
the available solution set is fairly broken.
On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
So, in essence, you are advocating not to
interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
working as it's pretty clear
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
In case you have not already found this:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It
On 18 feb 2011, at 9:24, Zed Usser wrote:
Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
Youtube,...), but:
- Less torrenting
- Less Netflix watching
- Less FTP downloads
- Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
You forget:
- no IPv6 tunnels
Deploying NAT444
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to deal
with these issues in any case?
I'd
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
In case you have not already found this:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
to have to deal with these issues in any case?
No, we need to move
On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
to have to deal with
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6
transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to disappear overnight. Furthermore,
without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only networks are going to
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You only need to solve those problems to the
extent that there are meaningful things still
trapped in an IPv4-only world.
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not result in
IPv6-only hosts before we run out of
On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to
analyze NAT444, but it really analyzes what
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You only need to solve those problems to the
extent that there are meaningful things still
trapped in an IPv4-only world.
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
The document is titled Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
Applications and it claims to discuss NAT444 issues. However, it conflates
NAT444 with CGN. And it is often used as an
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
element. Other deployment scenarios that also include a CGN
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net
wrote:
I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise,
I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444
breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't
39 matches
Mail list logo
