IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] double nat

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Wed, 03 October 2012 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78F221F847A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8X+PYeewuLX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B5721F846E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so4475677eek.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=ESZXfP7ygdcKoo8teYeZtzollpiqlWzSnwr5iv32K7o=; b=clTq0pTQYT1Phm5aWjfL30TpXft1FWGZv9EKu41eKG+Zya0DFY5lEuiVDybeh/0XJs WwoV6yQwm/4/cHpFuIc3HErzrMwR07A0qBfT4Wsj7RHyvDb6GLWjJsEmOMGvPwiQU5r4 819KwNM/3OBr4+fZLPf3GFn3JpObyXfnXZwRzJmeZVg2AJ7lPz0qVBw4m2FgAGxsIFtn i3Zo4mIz+M1gfqSVN/+lDFikNI4ScBOd/6dwoNFjatsaNTpTdrxPPzpnRdWxedYCAeFZ W/dslY7QDCYfeoFE3vJixR/4TF0zv5SCFXReU4VAiQ+UfvpX7FmukoGh+6labewxUmle pCIg==
Received: by 10.14.213.197 with SMTP id a45mr3526229eep.3.1349280418859; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-townsley-8912.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m42sm10439204eep.16.2012.10.03.09.06.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2lifpnpvf.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:06:30 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <35420A54-C576-44B3-ACB3-ADFECCF786BC@townsley.net>
References: <m2lifpnpvf.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7Ku+6ZTim4MihwQMgfgTKid5lxLDTjuRoE6H2+fp/zHWxAXb44D1GoEgaZouI2Dn20zSI
Cc: IETF v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] double nat
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:07:00 -0000

30 levels of NAT for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlwzZZp8tM

- Mark

On Oct 2, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> so, is double nat really worse than single nat?  is it formally
> different?  except in the case of overlapping spaces, of course.
> 
> draft-donley-nat444-impacts-04.txt seems to back off reports of
> application issues.  anyone care to swing the clue by four as to
> where multiple layers of nat are formally worse than one layer?
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email