<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Doug Barton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us" target="_blank">dougb@dougbarton.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Which uses more IPv4 addresses, a traditional IPv4 NAT or 464xlat? At the end of the day the PLAT still has to talk to the v4 net.</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh, I forgot - the answer to that question is that the traditional IPv4 NAT uses much more IPv4 space. This is because the traditional IPv4 NAT needs private IP addresses to number the endpoints.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you have fewer than 10M subscribers this might not matter, but if you're, say, a mobile operator with 50M subscribers, you either number endpoints using RIR space, or you number them with bogon space, or you have to use overlapping RFC1918 realms. RIR space is about to run out. Bogon space is risky, and overlapping RFC1918 is painful for operations and causes application breakage.</div>
</div></div></div>