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
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
The Inaugural Optical Innovation Forum in Nice

9|2|14   |     |   (0) comments


More than 170 attendees from network operators, service providers, analyst firms, and component companies from around the world convened in Nice in June for the inaugural Optical Innovation Forum, co-produced by Huawei and Light Reading.
Wagner’s Ring
Data Centers Drive Telcos Into the Future

8|28|14   |   2:20   |   (2) comments


Data centers are at the heart of key trends driving telecom -- network virtualization, the drive for increased agility, and the need to compete with OTT providers.
LRTV Custom TV
Why SPs Should Consider Cisco's EPN

8|27|14   |   5:40   |   (0) comments


Sultan Dawood from Cisco discusses Cisco's EPN, which enables SPs to build agile and programmable networks delivering new network virtualized services using Cisco's Evolved Services Platform (ESP).
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei’s Showcase @ Big Telecom Event 2014

8|26|14   |   2.56   |   (0) comments


SoftCOM is Huawei's framework for telecom business and network transformation. Haofei Liu, Solution Marketing Manager, Carrier Business Group, Huawei, showcases Huawei's SoftCOM architecture in this video.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei @ BTE 2014: Director of Integrated Solutions on SoftCOM & NFV Monetization

8|26|14   |   4.43   |   (0) comments


Libin Dai, Director of Integrated Solutions, Carrier Business Group, discusses Huawei's SoftCOM and NFV monetization. Huawei believes that NFV monetization should be service-driven rather than network-driven, and that operators should have network transformation, service transformation and a compatible and collaborative ecosystem in place in order to deploy NFV.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei @ BTE 2014: Director of US NFV Lab on CloudEdge & the Future of NFV

8|26|14   |   4.06   |   (0) comments


Sean Chen, Director of US NFV Lab at Huawei, discusses Huawei's new approach to NFV in open collaboration. Huawei believes that through Proof of Concept tests, it could help operators learn and communicate with the industry more effectively. Sean believes that successful implementation of NFV should have its values reaching to end users and discusses how Huawei's ...
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei's Highlights @ Big Telecom Event 2014

8|26|14   |   3.34   |   (0) comments


At the Big Telecom Event in Chicago Huawei showcases its high-level strategy, the SoftCOM architecture, which helps operators reduce the cost of ownership of their network infrastructure and generate additional revenue in the ICT service environment. Huawei showcases over 30 pilot programs from across the globe, focusing on the industry-leading commercial ...
LRTV Custom TV
VeEX – Live from the Show

8|21|14   |   5:58   |   (0) comments


An overview of VeEX Test and Measurement solutions including TX300S multi-service test set with VeExpress cloud-based management system, UX400 universal modular platform supporting 100G testing, and the redesigned RXT modular platform.
LRTV Custom TV
Transitioning CE 2.0 Networks Into the SDN & NFV Era With Telco Systems

8|19|14   |   5:19   |   (0) comments


Telco Systems' Ariel Efrati (CEO) and Moshe Shimon (VP of Product Management) discuss virtualization and how the company's new Open Metro Edge solution utilizes the SDN and NFV concepts to accelerate and orchestrate service delivery through its innovative product portfolio and software applications.
LRTV Custom TV
NFV Myths: Is NFV Still Several Years Away?

8|11|14   |   1:13   |   (0) comments


Some say that NFV (network functions virtualization) is still several years away from being implemented on mobile operator networks. This isn't the case. Operators can get started on their paths to NFV now, as this short video from Skyfire shows.
LRTV Custom TV
A New Security Paradigm in SDN/NFV

7|28|14   |   02:54   |   (0) comments


Paul Shaneck, Global Director Network Solutions for Symantec, discusses the evolving virtualized network, explaining how Symantec is leading the security discussion as it relates to SDN and NFV, and helping to ensure the network is protected and compliant.
LRTV Documentaries
Sprint's Network Evolution

7|24|14   |   14:59   |   (0) comments


Sprint's Jay Bluhm gives a keynote speech at the Big Telecom Event (BTE) about Sprint's network and services evolution strategy, including Spark.
Upcoming Live Events!!
September 16, 2014, Santa Clara, CA
September 16, 2014, Santa Clara, CA
September 23, 2014, Denver, CO
October 29, 2014, New York City
November 6, 2014, Santa Clara
November 11, 2014, Atlanta, GA
December 2, 2014, New York City
December 9-10, 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland
June 9-10, 2015, Chicago, IL
Infographics
A survey conducted by Vasona Networks suggests that 72% of mobile users expect good performance all the time, and they'll blame the network operator when it's not up to par.
Today's Cartoon
Hot Topics
Nokia's Maps Land on Samsung Devices
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 8/29/2014
Now Google Planning Drones-to-Go
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 8/29/2014
Music to My Mobile
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 8/28/2014
Be Open to the Freedom of Openness
Kelly Herrell, 8/29/2014
Netflix to FCC: Kill Comcast-TWC Deal
Alan Breznick, Cable/Video Practice Leader, 8/28/2014
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed