On Sep 8, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Dan Wing wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christian de Larrinaga [mailto:c...@firsthand.net] >> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:05 AM >> To: Cameron Byrne >> Cc: NANOG >> Subject: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? >> >> I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that the >> edge of Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is not >> just an ISP problem but one where content providers and services that >> is the users need to get from here to there in good order. >> >> So >> >> What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them?
Call up and ask for it? Vote with their $$ and their feet? >> What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once >> they are on IPv6 tails? 1. Encourage the sites they care about to implement IPv6. 2. Why is being on an IPv6 tail exclusive of being on an IPv4 tail. I would want to be on a dual-stack tail (which is what I currently have). >> >> Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not >> do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from a >> CGN? > > Careful with that idea -- people like their in-home network to continue > functioning even when their ISP is down or having an outage. Consider > a home NAS holding delivering content to the stereo or the television. > It is possible to eliminate reliance on the ISP's network and still > have the in-home network function, but it's more difficult than just > continuing to run NAT44 in the home like today. (Dual Stack-Lite One can do that with or without NAT. This claim that one cannot keep a network running without a service provider connected if you don't run NAT is a myth of dubious origin. > can accomplish this pretty easily, because the IPv4 addresses in > the home can be any IPv4 address whatsoever -- which allows the > in-home CPE ("B4", in Dual Stack-Lite parlance) to assign any address > it wants with its built-in DHCP server.) > There are other ways to accomplish this as well. > -d > >> and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who >> pays? In some cases, ISPs will provide new CPE to their end users. In other cases, end-users will be expected to pay to upgrade their own. Owen >> >> >> Christian >> >> On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> > >