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. > > "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to analyze > NAT444, but it really analyzes what fails when two problems occur: (a) port > forwarding isn't configured and (b) UPnP is unavailable or is broken. Several > architectures share those two problems: > > * NAT444 (NAPT44 in the home + NAPT44 in the carrier's network) > * LSN (NAPT44 in the carrier's network, without a NAPT44 in the home) > * DS-Lite (which is an LSN / NAPT44 in the carrier's network) > * stateful NAT64" >
I don't think the draft makes any attempt to claim that the problems are unique to NAT444, so, the above, while technically accurate isn't particulrarly meaningful. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09027.html > > Be that as it may and putting my devil's advocate hat on, aren't the > unintended consequences of NAT444 a net win for ISPs? :) > I guess that depends on whether you like having customers or not. > 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 online gaming, but what else is there not to love? :) > + More support phone calls + More unhappy customers + More cancellations + Less revenue + More costs + CALEA joy > Your sales department / helpdesk might have a bit of hassle of trying to > undestand / explain this new Intertubes to the suck^H^H^H^Hcustomers, but > most of them won't care either way. > An interesting theory. > 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 forward with IPv6 on all levels in order to reduce the need for these solutions. Joining the IPv4/IPv6 domains doesn't work out all that well and a dependency on doing so is broken in a number of ways, many of which are documented in the draft. Owen
