[172675] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Perreault)
Mon Jun 30 09:19:32 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:19:23 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <3278391F-86EF-4D81-834A-3BD8F0E85876@arbor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Le 2014-06-30 09:05, Roland Dobbins a écrit :
>
> On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt> wrote:
>
>> Why? Cause that (per-subscriber limits on ports and memory) is exactly what we recommend in RFC 6888...
>
> <https://app.box.com/s/a3oqqlgwe15j8svojvzl>
>
> I can't tell you how many times I've received frantic 4AM calls about NATted wireless networks going down due to this sort of thing. It's a real problem.
If you're saying "NAT is bad", then sure, ok, but that's besides the point.
Otherwise, then I don't know what your point is.
Oh, actually I think I get it. You're trying to sell something.
> Also, there are horizontal behaviors which are undesirable, as well.
Yeah, and let's not forget the diagonal ones either.
Simon
