On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: >>> >>>> Owen, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>>>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two >>>>> combined constraints: >>>>> >>>>> 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. >>>>> 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. >>>> >>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount >>>> of IPv4 addresses => LSN required. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin >>> >>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't >>> need LSN. >>> >>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you >>> can't >>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. >>> >>> >> >> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... >> > > cough DS-lite.
DS-lite is a slightly less pathological form of LSN. It's still LSN, it just removes the second NAT at the CPE. Owen
