Nat

Thu Dec 17 18:34:39 UTC 2015

At $dayjob$ (which is a university) we spoke to several vendors and eventually gave A10 Networks Thunder 3030 a test drive.

It satisfied our requirements and fit our budget.   Most of our NAT traffic originates from our undergraduate student population.  Peak workload during 2015 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 pushed 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 at hrins.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:52 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 16/Dec/15 18:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>>> 
>>> In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are
>>> facing some issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat
>>> problems!
>> 
>> This could be a function of the size of your ESP.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Mark.
> 
> Thats right but as you mentioned that its commercially palatable, however I don’t know if the other vendors are the same performance as ASR1000!  this was my question if someone recommend another vendor. 
> 
> 