NAT444 or ?

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 11 10:30:51 CDT 2011


On Sep 11, 2011 4:33 AM, "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins at arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> > I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not
distributed networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points)
of contact.
>
> The point is that these aggregations of state are quite vulnerable, and
therefore they should be as distributed as is practicable.
>

I don't disagree with that principle, but other priciples around scale,
cost, and oam say that we get one big box called a cgn. And, that is the
reality of service provider nat in the real world today.

For mobile providers, the cgn generally follows the mobility anchor points.
For some national providers that means nfl cities, for others that means one
per timezone.

Cb

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
>                The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
>
>                          -- Oscar Wilde
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list