[144314] in North American Network Operators' Group
what about the users re: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian de Larrinaga)
Thu Sep 8 11:05:41 2011
From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTQvx3OaVM5syPxR_9DZiEBp1Ls7ijqE0A_UvgvHcOUAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:04:50 +0100
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that the =
edge of Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is not just =
an ISP problem but one where content providers and services that is the =
users need to get from here to there in good order.=20
So=20
What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them?
What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once they =
are on IPv6 tails?
Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not =
do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from a =
CGN?
and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who =
pays?
Christian
On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter" <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
>>> Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
>>> To: Leigh Porter
>>> Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
>>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>>>=20
>>>> Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more than =
10
>>> users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily had
>>> around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted =
these
>>> are all different kinds of users, it is just something that =
operational
>>> experience will have to demonstrate.
>>>>=20
>>> Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444
>>> level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not =
individual
>>> users, so the term
>>> "users" is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer =
site
>>> may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.
>>=20
>> Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will =
be
> single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35 =
sessions
> from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times. These =
are a
> combination of individual users and "home modems".
>>=20
>> We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken and
> locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station =
software
> died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now..
>>=20
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around it =
at
>>> the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release their =
/8
>>> that is ;-)
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and
>>> widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less =
depends
>>> on fragile NAT444.
>>=20
>> Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on =
v6,
> it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such as
> Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the =
CDNs
> to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4) =
which
> again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.
>>=20
>> Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on =
the
> 'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not =
have
> to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts =
and
> such.
>>=20
>=20
> What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals =
latency, v4
> will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable latency.
>=20
> Cb
>> --
>> Leigh
>>=20
>>=20
>> =
______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> =
______________________________________________________________________
>>=20
