IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] double nat

"Arkadiusz Kaliwoda (akaliwod)" <akaliwod@cisco.com> Tue, 02 October 2012 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <akaliwod@cisco.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 6087321F8AC7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 2OBmIkHlai+n for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D5021F8ACC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=784; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349173580; x=1350383180; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=w8f1G5hxaDAjPbPYhFVkSes5VoPIaZ2zfJ03cLACMq0=; b=LIZxgTti84eCcVvSixBK1N5iiHtNinK+LmxXW1DMJbFmU949b9XwaBUM p6sXs/K1Gq24t0EL9tzyKED8wCkMMu64/Y4qbjofhaSfefvhuGH83YWl5 cy4pFw9Xr1qsLJeivMKEE/nMPj1boyC4KGBA8NE89rKKMy4KAkKIkkBDI I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EABjBalCtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABFvlmBCIIhAQEEEgEnTwIBCCIUEDIlAgQBGhqHY5lzj1aQbpEFYAOkK4FpgmeCFw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,522,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="127413058"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2012 10:26:08 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q92AQ7N7001895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:26:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.206]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 05:26:07 -0500
From: "Arkadiusz Kaliwoda (akaliwod)" <akaliwod@cisco.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, IETF v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] double nat
Thread-Index: AQHNoIanrO8XilLaAEy6aEJUa3GU6ZelzNpg
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:26:07 +0000
Message-ID: <C7DD0A1145B71949BBD65DF56D408BA80F50D495@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <m2lifpnpvf.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2lifpnpvf.wl%randy@psg.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.94.108]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19230.001
x-tm-as-result: No--32.770000-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:26:21 -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?

[Kali] IMHO it is not only important how many NAT layers exist but where NAT is implemented. DS-Lite is technically speaking NAT44 and it is no better or worse imho from the NAT444; simply because in case of DS-Lite, NAT44 is not where it should i.e. not at the home gateway. Then we move NAT44 back to the home gateway, while keeping IPv6 transport, with MAP-E/T, and we have yet another characteristics of NAT impact. 

Kali

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email