what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

Joel jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Thu Sep 8 16:22:47 UTC 2011

On 9/8/11 08:49 , Lyle Giese wrote:
> Can we really push an IPv6 agenda for CDN's when IPv6 routing at high
> backend levels is still not complete?  I certainly don't have the
> 'clout' to push that, but full routing between Cogent and HE needs to be
> fixed.

It's your job to run your network such that you have connectivity to the
destinations your customers want to reach not Cogent's or HE's...

> Lyle Giese
> LCR Computer Services, Inc.
> On 09/08/11 10:04, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>> 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.
>> So
>> 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?
>> Christian
>> 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