[c-nsp] need good recommendation for isp gateway nat bgp pbr

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, May 27, 2011 09:46:45 PM Brian Roche wrote:

> Thanks for the thorough analysis.  I share your concerns
> about NAT, have managed to limit its use to residential
> cable modems, and plan to completely remove it as part
> of our *eventual* IPv6 migrations/FTTH strategy.

<digress>

Well, as strange as it may sound, IPv6 won't take away your 
NAT woes in the short-to-medium term.

Because your IPv6-only customers (those that sign-up to your 
network after you've exhausted your last IPv4 address) will 
still need to communicate with IPv4-only resources on the 
Internet (those networks that still think IPv6 is a waste of 
time), you're probably going to need to do some kind of NAT 
for this. 

All NAT is evil, but I think NAT64 is less evil because 
you're not using private IPv4 or private IPv6 addresses (you 
can, but shouldn't). NAT64 will also make your final 
migration to native/non-NAT'ed IPv6 easier than if you did 
NAT44 or NAT444.

</digress>

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110527/343a8e64/attachment.pgp>