[186435] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Netideainc)
Thu Dec 17 13:34:45 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Netideainc <eriks@netideainc.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:34:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <186B1104-F30A-4EF6-A321-C17717204805@hrins.net>
To: "Nanog@Nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
At $dayjob$ (which is a university) we spoke to several vendors and eventual=
ly gave A10 Networks Thunder 3030 a test drive.
It satisfied our requirements and fit our budget. Most of our NAT traffic o=
riginates from our undergraduate student population. Peak workload during 2=
015 fall term was about 27k concurrently active devices, 4.6Gbps, 415kpps.
The ASR1000 would have been our other choice but the ASR's higher price push=
ed us toward A10.
Eriks
---
Eriks Rugelis
Sr. Consultant
Netidea Inc.
T: +1.416.876.0740
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 12:30, Ahmed Munaf <ahmed.dalaali@hrins.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:52 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On 16/Dec/15 18:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 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
>> This could be a function of the size of your ESP.
>>=20
>> The 5Gbps ESP can handle 256,000 NAT sessions, while the 200Gbps ESP
>> will do 4,000,000 NAT sessions with a per-second setup rate of 300,000
>> sessions.
>>=20
>> Of course, it makes little sense to upgrade if you run out of sessions
>> before you hit the NAT throughput ceiling, so other vendors may be more
>> commercially palatable.
>>=20
>> Mark.
>=20
> Thats right but as you mentioned that its commercially palatable, however I=
don=E2=80=99t know if the other vendors are the same performance as ASR1000=
! this was my question if someone recommend another vendor.=20
>=20
>=20
