IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] double nat

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 02 October 2012 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 C971B21F8679 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ZumtTlhAflIM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7013421F8674 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1TIzTg-000DlL-In for v6ops@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:24 +0000
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:13:24 +0100
Message-ID: <m2lifpnpvf.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: IETF v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [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: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:26 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email