On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:06 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 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. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00 > > Masataka Ohta > Since we are talking numbers ans hard facts 42% of usa accesses google on ipv6 https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html >