[144304] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoff Huston)
Thu Sep 8 01:27:29 2011
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <D181DDABABE57E4DB72FEE00331478643BAB51@EALPO1.ukbroadband.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:26:46 +1000
To: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>, Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de]
>> Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>>=20
>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
>>>=20
>>> you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic
>> meeting
>>> in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who =
were
>>> heavily pushing nat444 for the last two years suddenly started to =
say
>>> "it was not me who pushed nat444, it was him!" as if none of us had
>> a
>>> memory.
>>=20
>> Hm, I fail to find relevant slides discussing that. Could you please
>> point us to those?
>>=20
>> I'm looking at http://meetings.apnic.net/32
>=20
> There is a lot in the IPv6 plenary sessions:
>=20
> http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/ipv6
>=20
> This is what I am looking at right now. Randy makes some good comments =
in those sessions. I have not found anything yet, but I am only on =
session 3, pertaining specifically to issues around NAT444.
It may not be what Randy was referring to above, but as part of that =
program at APNIC32 I reported on the failure rate I am measuring for =
Teredo. I'm not sure its all in the slides I was using, but what I was =
trying to say was that STUN is simply terrible at reliably negotiating a =
NAT. I was then wondering what pixie dust CGNs were going to use that =
would have any impact on the ~50% connection failure rate I'm observing =
in Teredo. And if there is no such thing as pixie dust (damn!) I was =
then wondering if NATs are effectively unuseable if you want anything =
fancier than 1:1 TCP connections (like multi-user games, for example). =
After all, a 50% connection failure rate for STUN is hardly encouraging =
news for a CGN deployer if your basic objective is not to annoy your =
customers.
regards,
Geoff=
