Light Reading
Chris Donley, project director for network protocols at Cable Labs, explains the problems CGN will introduce for some network services
Video

The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT

50%
50%
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
yarn
50%
50%
yarn,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 4:58:57 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


If CG-NAT would not break any applications, IPv6 would probably not happen for another 5 to 10 years. So rejoice!

paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 4:58:56 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


 


I also believe he stated only 1 of the 2 use-cases for CGNAT and maybe I am using this term incorrectly but it is what we call it here.


The second problem is that IPv6 can not address IPv4 directly nor the other way around.  Many devices in the world are going to have to be "dual stacked".  This means that they run both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time.  It also means that anybody who wants to address devices in both domains will require an IPv6 address as well as an IPv4 address.


THAT is the problem.  Who in their right mind wants to put their content on an IPv6 network if nobody can get to it.  When we have written about CGNAT in the past what I thought we were discussing is the notion of the ability of IPv4 devices to have a presence in the IPv6 world (and vice versa) via a carrier based translation service that (at my site at least) we call CGNAT.


What was being discussed here seems like an alternate strategy to address translation.  Which is to double NAT in the IPv4 domain.  That will not solve the other problem of switching content simultaneously to IPv6.  


seven


 

fgoldstein
50%
50%
fgoldstein,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 4:58:56 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


NAT is your friend.  It only breaks broken applications.


Point-of-attachment addresses don't belong in the application layer.

fgoldstein
50%
50%
fgoldstein,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 4:58:55 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


He was talking about 4-4 NAT, not 4-6 NAT.  I see no point to 4-6 NAT, 6-6 or anything else with a 6 in it.  Once you realize that v6 was and is an Epic Fail of massive proportions, it al starts to make sense.


The problems he cited were that some NATs add latency or have limited capacity.  That's a capacity engineering problem; buffering strategy is often a problem, since some folks insert too much.


 

paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 4:58:55 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


 


Is your solution then to recover by force many of the IP address blocks that are wasted?  If we did that we could certainly delay IP address exhaust a LONG time.  Or are you suggesting we make an IPv7 which is completely different?


And I know he was only talking about double 4 NAT.  The problem is that this only solves one of the two huge hurdles on top of us.  Not the big one either.  Even if you are not happy with IPv6, then how about something more helpful than IPv6 sucks.


seven


 

rainbowarrior
50%
50%
rainbowarrior,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 4:58:54 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


I think BrooksSeven has a salient point.


With 84% of the current IPv4 address space completely unused, doesn't it make sense to just go through the administrative excersise of reclaiming and reallocating them? Isn't that easier than a compelete vertical and horizontal change to all applications, networking gear and back office systems that IPv6 requires?

fgoldstein
50%
50%
fgoldstein,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 4:58:54 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


Reclaiming space would buy a lot of time.  But the point is that client devices never belong on public IP address space.  The v4 address space should be used for gateways and public-facing servers.  Private nets should stay in net 10.


IPv4 addressing architecture is incomplete.  Applications should be addressed by name.  IPv6 does not fix this; it just makes for more wrong numbers, so to speak. As a stopgap (not to v6; as you might remember, I advocate RINA as the real answer), one should think about the "address" as being one 48-bit (IP+port (field, not as if they were separate layers. NAT gets this, but fundamentalists who believe old textbook descriptions of ARPANET protocols don't. And that's who wrote v6.


 

rainbowarrior
50%
50%
rainbowarrior,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 4:58:54 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


I think BrooksSeven has a salient point.


With 84% of the current IPv4 address space completely unused, doesn't it make sense to just go through the administrative excersise of reclaiming and reallocating them? Isn't that easier than a compelete vertical and horizontal change to all applications, networking gear and back office systems that IPv6 requires?

paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 4:58:53 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


Okay, so I agree with your first paragraph (espeically if you read my comments to Carol).


I guess I am confused on how application addressing is going to help us with address exhaust.  At some level some switching/routing device must move packets along to the next stop.  Even if there is an application address, that name will not be unique per endpoint.  So, we would still have to resolve that application on that endpoint.  I think the idea of separating the addresses here is that you do not want to have to update the network to be able to introduce a new application.  You want the endpoints to be able to talk applications to each other while the network blithely shuffles packets between them.


Don't get me wrong, I am not thrilled with IPv6 but I think that is a ship that has sailed soon if we don't reclaim addresses.


seven


 

rainbowarrior
50%
50%
rainbowarrior,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 4:58:51 PM
re: The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT


A lot of people in the network vendor and service provider community will say privately that IPv6 has already failed. The core protocols have been around for over 10 years with almost zero global adoption. V6 advocates say that this is because the industry is lazy, greedy, short-sighted and/or ignorant- but the other side of the coin is that a set of protocols that don't offer enough inherent value to make lazy, greedy, short-sighted people want to implement them don't deserve to be implemented.


A lot has changed since V6 was proposed back in the mid-90's. Is it time to write-off v6 and move on?


Can we start having an open and honest conversation about this? Or do we all have to politely pretend to be making the transition?

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
From The Founder
It's clear to me that the communications industry is divided into two types of people, and only one is living in the real world.
LRTV Documentaries
Optical Is Hot in 2015

1|23|15   |   01:56   |   (2) comments


Optical comms technology underpins the whole communications sector and there are some really hot trends set for 2015.
LRTV Custom TV
Policy Control in the Fast Lane

1|22|15   |   2:57   |   (0) comments


What's making policy control strategic in 2015 and beyond? Amdocs talks with Heavy Reading's Graham Finnie about the key factors driving change in the data services landscape. Find out what his policy management research reveals about the road ahead for policy control – and sign up for ...
LRTV Documentaries
Highlights From the 2020 Vision Executive Summit

1|21|15   |   4:33   |   (2) comments


In December 2014, Light Reading brought together telecom executives in Reykjavik, Iceland to discuss their vision for high-capacity networks through the end of the decade. The intimate, interactive meeting was set against the backdrop of Iceland's spectacular natural beauty. As one of the event's founding sponsors, Cisco's Doug Webster shared his company's ...
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei Pay-TV Partner Harmonic, Helping Carriers Accelerate 4K Video Deployment with Huawei

1|20|15   |   5:42   |   (1) comment


At IBC, Peter Alexander, Senior Vice President & CMO at Harmonic, speaks about the growing interest in pay-TV service and its branching into multiple devices.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Sony Marketing Director Olivier Bovis Discusses the Outlook for 4K and Cooperation With Huawei at IBC 2014

1|20|15   |   6:50   |   (0) comments


At IBC, Olivier Bovis, Marketing Director of Sony, speaks about the coming of the 4K era.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei Pay-TV Partner Envivio, Helping Carriers Accelerate 4K Video Deployment

1|20|15   |   2:57   |   (0) comments


At IBC, Olivier Bovis, Marketing Director of Sony, speaks about the coming of the 4K era.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Pay-TV's Networked Future

1|20|15   |   6:29   |   (0) comments


At IBC, Jeff Heynen, Principal Analyst at Infonetics, speaks about the future of the pay-TV industry and its transition.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Jeff Heynen: Distributed Access Will Help MSOs Compete in the Future

1|20|15   |   2:26   |   (0) comments


At IBC, Jeff Heynen, Principal Analyst at Infonetics, speaks about moving to distributed access and the future trend of cable business.
LRTV Interviews
Cisco Talks Transformation

1|20|15   |   13:02   |   (0) comments


In December 2014, Steve Saunders sat down with Cisco VP of Products & Solutions Marketing Doug Webster at Light Reading's 2020 Vision executive summit in Reykjavik, Iceland. They spoke about Cisco's approach to network virtualization as well as how service providers can begin to monetize high-capacity networks through the end of the decade.
LRTV Interviews
Bob Wilson, Arsenal Legend: The Light Reading Interview

1|16|15   |   35:36   |   (3) comments


Arsenal goalkeeping legend Bob Wilson was Light Reading's guest interviewee at the 2020 Vision Executive Summit in December. See what the former soccer star and sports broadcaster had to say when he took to the stage in Iceland.
LRTV Custom TV
What MEF Third Network Initiative Means for SDN & NFV

1|14|15   |   6:13   |   (0) comments


Vitesse Semiconductor CTO Martin Nuss discusses the importance of the MEF Third Network initiative and why it's good news for SDN/NFV industry initiatives.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Frank Miller: Distributed Solutions are the Best Build for the Future - Part II

1|9|15   |   2:46   |   (0) comments


At SCTE, Frank Miller, Global CTO of MSO at Huawei, speaks about Cable 2.0 and its innovative future.
Upcoming Live Events
February 5, 2015, Washington, DC
February 19, 2015, The Fairmont San Jose, San Jose, CA
March 17, 2015, The Cable Center, Denver, CO
April 14, 2015, The Westin Times Square, New York City, NY
May 12, 2015, Grand Hyatt, Denver, CO
May 13-14, 2015, The Westin Peachtree, Atlanta, GA
June 9-10, 2015, Chicago, IL
September 9-10, 2015, The Westin Galleria Dallas, Dallas, TX
September 29-30, 2015, The Westin Grand Müchen, Munich, Germany
November 11-12, 2015, The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta, GA
December 1, 2015, The Westin Times Square, New York City
December 2-3, 2015, The Westin Times Square, New York City
Infographics
Hot Topics
Cuomo Unveils Broadband Aid Program
Alan Breznick, Cable/Video Practice Leader, 1/19/2015
BlackBerry Wants Net Neutrality Protection -- That's Just Sad
Mitch Wagner, West Coast Bureau Chief, Light Reading, 1/22/2015
FiOS Picks Up Pace Again
Alan Breznick, Cable/Video Practice Leader, 1/22/2015
Verizon Ready for Google MVNO Challenge
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 1/22/2015
Indiana Carrier Takes Fiber to the Farm
Jason Meyers, Senior Editor, Gigabit Cities/IoT, 1/22/2015
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed
Webinar Archive