> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:21 PM > > Wes, > > Here's my take on this... > > CGN as defined in this document does not only include NAT444. It is more > generic than that: it really means "multi-user NAT". Dave Thaler came up > with the example use case of the NAT in a wifi hotspot. It's just NAT44, > but it still fits with the draft's definition of CGN because you have > multiple users potentially fighting for the same NAT resources. Remember > that the main raison d'être of this draft is for the operator to be able > to ensure fairness between NAT users. So in this view I think it is > clearly behave material since the sunsetting of IPv4 really is > orthogonal to multi-user NATs. > > On the question of IPv6: I don't think we should talk about IPv6 simply > because IPv6 NAT so far has not seen significant deployment in the > context of multi-user NAT. And NPTv6 is stateless so there are no > resources to fight for. [WEG] I agree with all of what you've said, but I think I need to make the point that I'm concerned with clearer, because the above doesn't exactly address it. I wasn't saying anything about IPv6 NAT, or even IPv4 sunset. I was saying that the current wording is unclear as to what you mean by "IPv4-only". While the NAT specified by this document itself may only act on IPv4 traffic, as you note above it's not limited to just NAT444 or even an IPv4-only *network*. The recommendations in this doc will work for an IPv4 NAT associated with DSLite just as easily as a more traditional IPv4 transport. This is an important distinction, IMO. > > Back to your email, where you wrote: > > > if it is truly a IPv4-only NAT (NAT44 or NAT444) requirements doc > rather than a more generic CGN requirements doc, it should be named to > reflect that. > > How about "Common Requirements for IPv4 Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)"? [WEG] This helps, but only in conjunction with additional clarification about the application - that is, just because the NAT is IPv4-only doesn't mean that the network must also be IPv4-only. Thanks Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.