& cplSiteName &
Video

The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT

7/18/2011
50%
50%
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
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 Sabre
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 Sabre
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 Sabre
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   >   >>
Featured Video
From The Founder
Light Reading is spending much of this year digging into the details of how automation technology will impact the comms market, but let's take a moment to also look at how automation is set to overturn the current world order by the middle of the century.
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
November 1, 2017, The Royal Garden Hotel
November 1, 2017, The Montcalm Marble Arch
November 2, 2017, 8 Northumberland Avenue, London, UK
November 2, 2017, 8 Northumberland Avenue London
November 10, 2017, The Westin Times Square, New York, NY
November 16, 2017, ExCel Centre, London
November 30, 2017, The Westin Times Square
May 14-17, 2018, Austin Convention Center
All Upcoming Live Events
Infographics
With the mobile ecosystem becoming increasingly vulnerable to security threats, AdaptiveMobile has laid out some of the key considerations for the wireless community.
Hot Topics
Muni Policies Stymie Edge Computing
Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 10/17/2017
Is US Lurching Back to Monopoly Status?
Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 10/16/2017
'Brutal' Automation & the Looming Workforce Cull
Iain Morris, News Editor, 10/18/2017
Pai's FCC Raises Alarms at Competitive Carriers
Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 10/16/2017
Worried About Bandwidth for 4K? Here Comes 8K!
Aditya Kishore, Practice Leader, Video Transformation, Telco Transformation, 10/17/2017
Animals with Phones
Selfie Game Strong Click Here
Latest Comment
Live Digital Audio

Understanding the full experience of women in technology requires starting at the collegiate level (or sooner) and studying the technologies women are involved with, company cultures they're part of and personal experiences of individuals.

During this WiC radio show, we will talk with Nicole Engelbert, the director of Research & Analysis for Ovum Technology and a 23-year telecom industry veteran, about her experiences and perspectives on women in tech. Engelbert covers infrastructure, applications and industries for Ovum, but she is also involved in the research firm's higher education team and has helped colleges and universities globally leverage technology as a strategy for improving recruitment, retention and graduation performance.

She will share her unique insight into the collegiate level, where women pursuing engineering and STEM-related degrees is dwindling. Engelbert will also reveal new, original Ovum research on the topics of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, security and augmented reality, as well as discuss what each of those technologies might mean for women in our field. As always, we'll also leave plenty of time to answer all your questions live on the air and chat board.

Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
The Mobile Broadband Road Ahead
By Kevin Taylor, for Huawei
All Partner Perspectives