what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

Christian de Larrinaga cdel at firsthand.net
Thu Sep 8 15:04:50 UTC 2011

I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that the edge of Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is not just an ISP problem but one where content providers and services that is the users need to get from here to there in good order. 


What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them?
What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once they are on IPv6 tails?

Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from a CGN?
and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who pays?


On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:

> On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter" <leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
>>> To: Leigh Porter
>>> Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
>>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>>>> Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more than 10
>>> users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily had
>>> around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted these
>>> are all different kinds of users, it is just something that operational
>>> experience will have to demonstrate.
>>> Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444
>>> level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not individual
>>> users, so the term
>>> "users" is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer site
>>> may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.
>> Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will be
> single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35 sessions
> from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times. These are a
> combination of individual users and "home modems".
>> We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken and
> locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station software
> died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now..
>>>> I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around it at
>>> the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release their /8
>>> that is ;-)
>>> The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and
>>> widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less depends
>>> on fragile NAT444.
>> Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on v6,
> it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such as
> Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the CDNs
> to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4) which
> again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.
>> Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on the
> 'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not have
> to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts and
> such.
> What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals latency, v4
> will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable latency.
> Cb
>> --
>> Leigh
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________

More information about the NANOG mailing list