Re: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:10 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Matthew Ford'; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; 'Lorenzo Colitti'
> Subject: Re: Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
> 
> Dan,
> 
> On 2010-06-13 04:27, Dan Wing wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:54 AM
> >> To: Dan Wing
> >> Cc: 'Matthew Ford'; [e-mail]; 
> >> [e-mail]; 
> 'Lorenzo Colitti'
> >> Subject: Re: Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
> >>
> >> On 2010-06-11 10:30, Dan Wing wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>  o Add some text to clarify that whether we're talking about 
> >>>> DS-LITE, NAT64 or NAT444 isn't especially important - it's 
> >>>> the view from the outside that matters, and given that, most 
> >>>> of the issues apply regardless of the specific address 
> >>>> sharing scenario in question.
> >>> That would be good.  Should be NAT44 (not "444"), though.  The
> >>> problem of IP address sharing is orthogonal to the subscriber
> >>> operating their own NAT in their house (which is one of the
> >>> 4's of NAT444).
> >> Really, in every single case? I thought there were cases
> >> where single-NAT traversal works and double-NAT traversal doesn't.
> > 
> > Yes, there are such cases.  And those cases should be called 
> > out.
> > 
> >> Certainly the issues of subscriber identification and geolocation
> >> are significantly worse for NAT444 than for NAT44.
> > 
> > If we consider home routers with 802.11, geolocation works as well
> > with or without NAT -- the WiFi device could be in the living room
> > or maybe the back yard, but won't be much farther away.  Subscriber
> > ID works as well as telephone numbers (can't tell if it's me or
> > my wife or my kid using my telephone -- just know it is someone
> > at my house).
> 
> Viewed from the content provider, a NAT444 subscriber geolocates to
> wherever the prefix of the provider NAT appears to be; very often
> that will be in a different city, and sometimes in a 
> different country,
> than the subscriber. In contrast, a subscriber behind a 
> single CPE NAT can
> be pretty accurately located these days. (Of course, that is 
> geolocation
> for coarse-grain commercial purposes, not accurate enough for legal or
> emergency response purposes, which is a whole other discussion.)

Yes, I am very familiar with that problem.

That comparison and the view (from the content provider) is 
exactly the same no matter if the subscriber is operating a NAT
in their home ("NAT444") or is *not* operating a NAT in their 
home (e.g., DS-Lite). 

The problem is caused by the carrier's NAT (NAT44), not by
the subscriber's NAT.

-d



>    Brian
> 
> > 
> >> Also, A+P should be in the list.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > -d
> > 
> >