[144291] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Perreault)
Wed Sep 7 17:30:16 2011
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:29:16 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4E67D24F.10706@otd.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
David Israel wrote, on 09/07/2011 04:21 PM:
> In theory, this
> particular performance problem should only arise when the NAT gear insists on a
> unique port per session (which is common, but unnecessary)
What you're describing is known as "endpoint-independent mapping" behaviour. It
is good for not breaking applications, not so good for scalability. RFC 4787
section 4.1 makes it a MUST.
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
