[Bp_ipv6] Request for clarification NAT v NAT

Carlos M. Martinez carlos at lacnic.net
Thu Nov 26 12:56:16 EST 2015

+1 to Aaron's comment. NAT44 is not a transition technology, in the
sense that deploying a CGN for translating IPv4 to IPv4 addresses will
not get you one inch closer to deploying IPv6.

However, NAT64 (a box that translates ipv6 packets into ipv4 packets) IS
a transition technology.



On 11/26/15 10:32 AM, Aaron Hughes wrote:
> NAT and CGN are examples of technologies used to extend the life of IPv4 and have nothing to do with IPv6 transition. e.g. you can use either or both and never get any closer to IPv6 adoption.
> NAT64+DNS64 is an example of IPv4 to IPv6 transition technology where hosts are numbered into IPv6 only and are dual stacked on on outside edge. This is clearly a technology being used to transition to a v6 only world and assists with transition.
> Does this help?
> Cheers,
> Aaron
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:13:46AM -0500, Susan Chalmers wrote:
>> Hello colleagues,
>> During the discussion, the function of NAT was originally described as the
>> address space saving kind, and so this was how NAT was treated in the
>> paper. Through comments made on the review platform, other functions of NAT
>> were described - more or less enabling translation and thus necessary and
>> helping the transition.
>> I want to be sure that the differences here are clear to the reader. Could
>> someone help shed a bit of light at a high level?
>> Thanks,
>> Susan
>> Susan Chalmers
>> susan at chalmers.associates
>> http://chalmers.associates
>> -- 
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list