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

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

 

> -----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).

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

Agreed.

-d