what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

Lyle Giese lyle at lcrcomputer.net
Thu Sep 8 18:38:43 CDT 2011


And these 'perceived' routing issues won't be noticed nor are they 
important to CDN's?

I know what my job is, but that may not matter to the CDN's.  Reading 
this thread, I wanted to mention another problem that I feel has an 
effect on this issue.

Lyle

On 09/08/11 11:22, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> 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