[194337] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGNAT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Max Tulyev)
Fri Apr 7 14:00:57 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:59:42 +0300
In-Reply-To: <000001d2af15$14a94fa0$3dfbeee0$@gvtc.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
BTW, does somebody check how implementing a native IPv6 decrease actual
load of CGNAT?
On 06.04.17 23:33, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Last year I evaluated Cisco ASR9006/VSM-500 and Juniper MX104/MS-MIC-16G in
> my lab.
>
> I went with MX104/MS-MIC-16G. I love it.
>
> I deployed (2) MX104's. Each MX104 has a single MX-MIC-16G card in it. I
> integrated this CGNAT with MPLS L3VPN's for NAT Inside vrf and NAT outside
> vrf. Both MX104's learn 0/0 route for outside and send a 0/0 route for
> inside to all the PE's that have DSLAMs connected to them. So each PE with
> DSL connected to it learns default route towards 2 equal cost MX104's. I
> could easily add a third MX104 to this modular architecture.
>
> I have 7,000 DSL broadband customers behind it. Peak time throughput is
> hitting up at 4 gbps... I see a little over 100,000 service flows
> (translations) at peak time
>
> I think each MX104 MS-MIC-16G can able about ~7 million translations and
> about 7 gbps of cgnat throughput... so I'm good.
>
> I have a /25 for each MX104 outside public address pool (so /24 total for
> both MX104's)... pretty sweet how I use /24 for ~7,000 customers :)
>
> I'll freeze this probably for DSL and not put anything else behind it. I
> want to leave well-enough alone.
>
> If I move forward with CGNAT'ing Cable Modem (~6,000 more subsrcibers) I'll
> probably roll-out (2) more MX104's with a new vrf for that...
>
> If I move forward with CGNAT'ing FTTH (~20,000 more subsrcibers) I'll
> probably roll-out (2) MX240/480/960 with MS-MPC... I feel I'd want/need
> something beefier for FTTH...
>
> - Aaron
>
>
>
