On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter"<leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com>
wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
To: Leigh Porter
Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more than 10
users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily had
around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted
these
are all different kinds of users, it is just something that
operational
experience will have to demonstrate.
Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444
level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not
individual
users, so the term
"users" is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer site
may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users.
Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will be
single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35
sessions
from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times. These
are a
combination of individual users and "home modems".
We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken and
locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station software
died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now..
I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around it at
the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release
their /8
that is ;-)
The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and
widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less
depends
on fragile NAT444.
Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on v6,
it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such as
Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the
CDNs
to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4) which
again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT.
Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on the
'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not
have
to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts and
such.
What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals
latency, v4
will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable latency.
Cb
--
Leigh
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________