[144305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mos)
Thu Sep 8 01:42:46 2011
From: Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5C47414A-20FF-4242-B72A-02F35C2101B9@apnic.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:41:58 +0200
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Op 8 sep 2011, om 07:26 heeft Geoff Huston het volgende geschreven:
>=20
> On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>=20
> 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.
The striking thing I picked up is that NTT considers the CGN equipment a =
big black hole where money goes into. Because it won't solve their =
problem now or in the future and it becomes effectively a piece of =
equipment they need to buy and then scrap "soon" after.
They acknowledge the need, but they'd rather not buy one.
That and they (the isp) get called for anything which doesn't work.
Regards,
Seth=
