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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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.)

   Brian

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