> -----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, 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 I disagree > that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444. They > all do state that these problems are present in NAT444, but not that > it's the only technology/scenario/configuration where you might find > them. > > More importantly, I am unsure the point of this argument.
My point is that: NAT breaks things, but NAT444 is /not/ the only case where breakage occurs. > Are you > trying to say that the items listed as broken in the draft are not > actually broken? Because in my experience they are. IMHO, the fact > that they are also broken in other (similar) scenarios is not evidence > that they are not broken in this one. On the contrary, this scenario > seems to be evidence to the brokenness in the others (until we get a > chance to test and document them all - are you volunteering? ;). Vendor test results don't carry much value. The authors of draft-donley-nat444-impacts did testing, and I sincerely hope will publish results that split the impacts of access bandwidth starvation from home NAT from CGN from NAT444. -d > Cheers, > ~Chris > > > > -d > > > > > > > > > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > weblog.chrisgrundemann.com > www.burningwiththebush.com > www.theIPv6experts.net > www.coisoc.org
