NAT444 or ?

Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 23:08:50 CDT 2011


When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
work,  it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)

Warm regards

Carlos

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Mike Jones <mike at mikejones.in> wrote:
> As HTTP seems to be a major factor causing a lot of short lived
> connections, and several large ISPs have demonstrated that large scale
> transparent HTTP proxies seem to work just fine, you could also move
> the IPv4 port 80 traffic from the CGN to a transparent HTTP proxy. As
> well as any benefits from caching keeping connections local it can
> also combine 1000 users trying to load facebook in to a handful of
> persistent connections to the facebook servers. The proxy can of
> course also have its own global IPv4 address rather than going through
> the NAT, I have no experience with large scale HTTP proxy deployments
> but I strongly suspect a single HTTP proxy can handle traffic for a
> lot more users than low hundreds currently being suggested for NAT444!
> and can be scaled out separately if required.
>
> As an end user this is probably a little worse with HTTP coming from a
> different IP address to everything else, but not that much worse. As a
> provider it may be much easier to scale to larger numbers of
> customers. The proxy can also take IPv4-only users to a dual stacked
> site over IPv6, as I am under no illusions that even with IPv6 to
> every customer you will still have customers behind IPv4-only NAT
> routers they bought themselves for quite a while. With some DNS tricks
> this might be useful for those users reaching IPv6-only sites, however
> it would probably be better if they were unable to reach those sites
> at all to give them an incentive to fix their IPv6.
>
> On 7 September 2011 21:37, Leigh Porter <leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com> wrote:
>> Other simple tricks such as ensuring that your own internal services such as DNS are available without traversing NAT also help.
>
> As obvious as this probably is, i'm sure someone will overlook it!
> Also other services such as providers with CDN nodes in their network
> may want to talk to the CDN operator about having those connected to
> directly from the internal addresses to avoid traversing the NAT, and
> I'm sure there are other services as well.
>
> - Mike
>
>



-- 
--
=========================
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
http://www.labs.lacnic.net
=========================




More information about the NANOG mailing list