what about the users re: NAT444 or ?
dwing at cisco.com
Thu Sep 8 16:52:05 UTC 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian de Larrinaga [mailto:cdel at firsthand.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:05 AM
> To: Cameron Byrne
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?
> 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
Careful with that idea -- people like their in-home network to continue
functioning even when their ISP is down or having an outage. Consider
a home NAS holding delivering content to the stereo or the television.
It is possible to eliminate reliance on the ISP's network and still
have the in-home network function, but it's more difficult than just
continuing to run NAT44 in the home like today. (Dual Stack-Lite
can accomplish this pretty easily, because the IPv4 addresses in
the home can be any IPv4 address whatsoever -- which allows the
in-home CPE ("B4", in Dual Stack-Lite parlance) to assign any address
it wants with its built-in DHCP server.)
> and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter" <leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com>
> >>> -----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
> >>> 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
> >>> are all different kinds of users, it is just something that
> >>> 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
> >>> users, so the term
> >>> "users" is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer
> >>> may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.
> >> Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will
> > single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35
> > 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
> > 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
> >>> 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
> >>> on fragile NAT444.
> >> Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on
> > it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such
> > Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the
> > to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4)
> > again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.
> >> Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on
> > 'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not
> > to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts
> > 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
> >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
More information about the NANOG