CGNAT Solutions

Ca By cb.list6 at
Wed Apr 29 14:17:51 UTC 2020

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:06 AM Masataka Ohta <
mohta at> wrote:

> Brandon Martin wrote:
> >> If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
> >> CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
> >
> > Yes, you can get rid of the logging by statically allocating ranges of
> > port numbers to a particular customer.
> And, that was the original concern.
> > What I was referring to, though, was the programmatic state tracking of
> > the {external IP, external port}-{internal IP, internal port} mappings.
> OK.
> >   You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internal port
> > range it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses.  If you
> > can do that, you can get rid of the programmatic state tracking entirely
> > and just use static translations for TCP and UDP which, while nice, is
> > impractical.  You're about 95% of the way to LW4o6 or MAP at that point.
> Interesting. Then, if you can LW4o6 or MAP, you are about 95% of the
> way to E2ENAT with complete end to end transparency using IPv4 only,
> which means we don't need IPv6 with 4to6 NAT lacking the transparency.
>                                                 Masataka Ohta

Since we are talking numbers ans hard facts

42% of usa accesses google on ipv6

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list