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

[Matthew Ford <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

On 12 Jun 2010, at 17:27, 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.
> 

Care to offer (or point me to) some text on this point?

Mat