Light Reading
Video

The Case Against Carrier-Grade NAT

50%
50%
Repost This
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 Beer
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 Beer
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 Beer
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 Custom TV
Optimizing SDN & NFV Architectures Through Application Awareness

4|23|14   |   6:24   |   (0) comments


Jerome Tollet, CTO at Qosmos, explains how network equipment vendors and operators deploying SDN and NFV can take advantage of network intelligence delivered by DPI to strengthen products and services.
LRTV Custom TV
Wind River Demonstrates Carrier-Grade Software for NFV

4|22|14   |   5:00   |   (0) comments


Wind River VP of Product Management, Glenn Seiler, takes a look the industry's first and only complete NFV software platform designed specifically for the unique carrier-grade and high-performance needs of telecom networks.
LRTV Documentaries
Cable Eyes Big Technology Shifts

4|16|14   |   03:02   |   (4) comments


US cable engineers are facing a lot of heavy lifting in the coming years, notes Light Reading Cable/Video Practice Leader Alan Breznick.
LRTV Custom TV
Maximizing Customer Experience & Assuring Service Delivery in an IP World

4|15|14   |   4:57   |   (0) comments


Steven Shalita, VP of Marketing, NetScout Systems, Inc., discusses the challenges cable/MSO operators face in assuring the delivery of new IP-based services. Key points include the value of proactively managing performance, and using rich analytics and operational intelligence to better understand service and usage trends, make smarter business decisions and ...
LRTV Documentaries
Bye-Bye DVD: Consumers Embrace Digital Video

4|10|14   |   04:17   |   (7) comments


Veteran video analyst Colin Dixon, founder and principal analyst of nScreenMedia, says research shows 56% are using digital video already.
LRTV Documentaries
Video: TW Cable Puts Multicast Gateways to the Test

4|8|14   |   04:13   |   (1) comment


Tom Gonder, a chief architect at Time Warner Cable, explains how its trial of multicast gateways is impacting IP-based video plans.
LRTV Custom TV
Managing & Monetizing Big Data in Operator Environments

4|7|14   |     |   (1) comment


At Mobile World Congress, Gigamon's Director of Service Provider Solutions, Andy Huckridge, and Heavy Reading Analyst Sarah Wallace discuss the 'big data' issues facing carriers and operators today.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Data Center Energy – Build Your Data Center in a Modular Way

4|7|14   |   2:13   |   (0) comments


Dr. Fang Liangzhou, VP Network Energy Product Line, shared his thoughts about the challenges for data centers during CeBIT 2014.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Agile Network Solution – An Overview of Huawei's Agile Network Solution

4|7|14   |   2:31   |   (0) comments


Ajay Gupta, Director of Product Marketing, Networking Product Line, gives an overview of the Agile Network Solutions during CeBIT 2014.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei’s eLTE Voice Trunking, Video and Data Applied for Railways

4|7|14   |   1:38   |   (0) comments


Gottfried Winter is the Sales Director at Funkwerk, a German specialist in GSM-r terminals and a long-time partner of Huawei. At CeBIT 2014, Winter talks to Light Reading about this partnership and the integration of enhanced voice trunking, video and data functions.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
LeaseWeb Speaks Highly of Huawei's Datacenter Products

4|7|14   |   1:37   |   (0) comments


Rene Olde Olthof, Operations Director LeaseWeb, talks about the next data center transformation during CeBIT 2014.
LRTV Documentaries
Comcast: Reshaping the Cable Network Architecture

4|3|14   |   07:11   |   (8) comments


Shamim Akhtar, Comcast's architect and senior director of network strategy, explains why the cable company is moving to a more distributed network architecture.
Hot Topics
WhatsApp Threatens Carrier VoLTE
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 4/18/2014
The Hungry, Hungry Cloud
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 4/22/2014
Who's Ready to Play Broadband?
Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 4/21/2014
What's the Magic of Private Equity?
Carolyn Mathas, 4/22/2014
AT&T Turns Up Gig Heat in 21 New Metros
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 4/21/2014
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed