Max Tulyev maxtul at
Fri Apr 7 17:59:42 UTC 2017

BTW, does somebody check how implementing a native IPv6 decrease actual
load of CGNAT?

On 06.04.17 23:33, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Last year I evaluated Cisco ASR9006/VSM-500 and Juniper MX104/MS-MIC-16G in
> my lab.
> I went with MX104/MS-MIC-16G.  I love it.
> I deployed (2) MX104's.  Each MX104 has a single MX-MIC-16G card in it.  I
> integrated this CGNAT with MPLS L3VPN's for NAT Inside vrf and NAT outside
> vrf.  Both MX104's learn 0/0 route for outside and send a 0/0 route for
> inside to all the PE's that have DSLAMs connected to them.  So each PE with
> DSL connected to it learns default route towards 2 equal cost MX104's.  I
> could easily add a third MX104 to this modular architecture.
> I have 7,000 DSL broadband customers behind it.  Peak time throughput is
> hitting up at 4 gbps... I see a little over 100,000 service flows
> (translations) at peak time
> I think each MX104 MS-MIC-16G can able about ~7 million translations and
> about 7 gbps of cgnat throughput... so I'm good.
> I have a /25 for each MX104 outside public address pool (so /24 total for
> both MX104's)... pretty sweet how I use /24 for ~7,000 customers :) 
> I'll freeze this probably for DSL and not put anything else behind it.  I
> want to leave well-enough alone.
> If I move forward with CGNAT'ing Cable Modem (~6,000 more subsrcibers) I'll
> probably roll-out (2) more MX104's with a new vrf for that...
> If I move forward with CGNAT'ing FTTH (~20,000 more subsrcibers) I'll
> probably roll-out (2) MX240/480/960 with MS-MPC... I feel I'd want/need
> something beefier for FTTH...
> - Aaron

More information about the NANOG mailing list