Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario

[Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>]

Le mardi 17 juin 2008 14:47:36 Jari Arkko, vous avez écrit :
> I hope no one is no longer arguing that we should do a double NAT. I
> think that would be wrong because tunneling ensures that your IPv4
> traffic is as intact as possible. Yes, it may eventually get NATted, but
> I do not want to create technology that forces you to do it no matter
> what is at the other end. For instance, with a tunnel-based crossing of
> the v6-only cloud customers sites that have public IPv4 space will not
> see any NAT effects.

Yeah. In practice, there may very well already be two NATs:
- the cheap off-the-shelf access point plugged in next to the 464 CPE [1],
- the hyper-NAT at the ISP end of the 464.

So you're talking about triple NAT :)
Indeed, that might not be such a great idea.


[1] However fully-feature the ISP-provided CPE may be, a significant 
proportion of users will keep doing this.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/