[186401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ahmed Munaf)
Wed Dec 16 11:36:35 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Ahmed Munaf <ahmed.dalaali@hrins.net>
In-Reply-To: <56718FBD.8050602@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:36:19 +0300
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are =
facing some issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat =
problems!=20
Ahmed,=20
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 16/Dec/15 12:45, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>=20
>> Yes, we are using ASR1004 for NAT, we are considering A10 or Citrix =
or F5. we=E2=80=99ve not decided till now!=20
>> maybe we change it to another product, if anyone give us a better =
solution.=20
>>=20
>> this will be used for ISP=E2=80=99s users.=20
>=20
> The ASR1000 is not a bad large scale NAT device. Are there any =
specific
> issues you are facing with it?
>=20
> Mark.
