A tangent Re: Some data Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
i know this thread died a few moons ago, and wont help anyone guess the height limit of warships under bridges, but in case anyone's interested in a rough guess of where people play net games from, along with a slighly revised estimate of NAT usage, i've crunched some numbers and placed results at: http://members.home.net/garmitage/things/quake3-where-050201.html cheers, gja Jon Crowcroft wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Lussier typ > ed: > > >>> > "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users > >>> > who are behind firewalls and NATs?" > > >>How about for business users? If the assumption can be made > >>that most Q3 players are home based (which would probably > >>have a lower incidence of NATs) ~20% sounds high. Of > >>course that could be because of sevice providers. > > according to some measurements, most game players are at WORK. > + > in some parts of the world, most HOME users aere behind NATs > > >>But does anyone have a better idea for business users? > > cheers > >jon -- Grenville Armitagehttp://members.home.net/garmitage/
Re: Some data Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Lussier typ ed: >>> > "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users >>> > who are behind firewalls and NATs?" >>How about for business users? If the assumption can be made >>that most Q3 players are home based (which would probably >>have a lower incidence of NATs) ~20% sounds high. Of >>course that could be because of sevice providers. according to some measurements, most game players are at WORK. + in some parts of the world, most HOME users aere behind NATs >>But does anyone have a better idea for business users? cheers jon
RE: Some data Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
> > "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users > > who are behind firewalls and NATs?" > So, this question piqued my interest. Figured I'd take a > bash at estimating NAT usage using the online QuakeIII community > as a reference. Cobbled together two Q3 servers, logged client > port numbers, and looked for NAPT 'fingerprint' of clients coming > in on unexpected UDP ports (Q3 client side seems to always use > 27960 if not mangled by NAPT). Using an indirect, and somewhat > arm-wavy method I estimate between 18 and 19% of the players > on my servers were behind NAT boxes. A bit more discussion is How about for business users? If the assumption can be made that most Q3 players are home based (which would probably have a lower incidence of NATs) ~20% sounds high. Of course that could be because of sevice providers. But does anyone have a better idea for business users? Kyle Lussier www.AutoNOC.com
Some data Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Jiri Kuthan wrote: [..] > I would like to re-raise the question: > > "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users > who are behind firewalls and NATs?" So, this question piqued my interest. Figured I'd take a bash at estimating NAT usage using the online QuakeIII community as a reference. Cobbled together two Q3 servers, logged client port numbers, and looked for NAPT 'fingerprint' of clients coming in on unexpected UDP ports (Q3 client side seems to always use 27960 if not mangled by NAPT). Using an indirect, and somewhat arm-wavy method I estimate between 18 and 19% of the players on my servers were behind NAT boxes. A bit more discussion is at: http://members.home.net/garmitage/things/nat-quake3.html (Usual caveats: analysis may have entirely missed the point, clicking on the link voids your warranty, life is too short, etc..) cheers, gja Grenville Armitagehttp://members.home.net/garmitage/
Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Sure. Business users are my 40% handwave - I'm assuming they are all behind firewalls, and many of them behind NAT. It doesn't surprise me that SMBs are (almost) all behind NAT. Brian David Higginbotham wrote: > > just a brief review of local administrator peers at small and medium > business (+/- 10 admin's/business, avg 25 to hosts per/ea) is 100% with > 'always on' connectivity behind firewall and NAT. very small sample but 100% > is significant > David H > > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:10 PM > To: Paul Hoffman / IMC > Cc: Frank Solensky; Jiri Kuthan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users > > Exactly. More or less by definition, since NATs and firewalls hide > stuff, we can't possibly measure the stuff they hide. > And since they are hiding stuff for good reason, administrators > more or less by definition will not answer accurately. So it can't > be measured. > > My hand waving estimate is that 40% (160M) of users are behind a firewall > and/or NAT, 50% (200M) on dial-up, and 10% (40M) have direct always-on > access. > But there is no way I can justify these numbers. > > Brian > > Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > > > > At 12:10 PM -0500 1/23/01, Frank Solensky wrote: > > >One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results > > >but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the > > >results if you don't get a very significant response rate > > > > The problem is *much* worse than that. You have to be confident that > > your sampling method actually reflects enough of the Internet to be > > valid. Determining how you have reached a valid sample of > > administrators would be an interesting problem. Further, it is safe > > to assume that administrators for the largest networks are the least > > likely to reply, or to reply accurately. > > > > And then there is the problem of assuming that they understand your > > question, and can even count the systems on their networks well > > enough to answer accurately... > > > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > > --Internet Mail Consortium
RE: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
just a brief review of local administrator peers at small and medium business (+/- 10 admin's/business, avg 25 to hosts per/ea) is 100% with 'always on' connectivity behind firewall and NAT. very small sample but 100% is significant David H -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:10 PM To: Paul Hoffman / IMC Cc: Frank Solensky; Jiri Kuthan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Exactly. More or less by definition, since NATs and firewalls hide stuff, we can't possibly measure the stuff they hide. And since they are hiding stuff for good reason, administrators more or less by definition will not answer accurately. So it can't be measured. My hand waving estimate is that 40% (160M) of users are behind a firewall and/or NAT, 50% (200M) on dial-up, and 10% (40M) have direct always-on access. But there is no way I can justify these numbers. Brian Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > > At 12:10 PM -0500 1/23/01, Frank Solensky wrote: > >One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results > >but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the > >results if you don't get a very significant response rate > > The problem is *much* worse than that. You have to be confident that > your sampling method actually reflects enough of the Internet to be > valid. Determining how you have reached a valid sample of > administrators would be an interesting problem. Further, it is safe > to assume that administrators for the largest networks are the least > likely to reply, or to reply accurately. > > And then there is the problem of assuming that they understand your > question, and can even count the systems on their networks well > enough to answer accurately... > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Exactly. More or less by definition, since NATs and firewalls hide stuff, we can't possibly measure the stuff they hide. And since they are hiding stuff for good reason, administrators more or less by definition will not answer accurately. So it can't be measured. My hand waving estimate is that 40% (160M) of users are behind a firewall and/or NAT, 50% (200M) on dial-up, and 10% (40M) have direct always-on access. But there is no way I can justify these numbers. Brian Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > > At 12:10 PM -0500 1/23/01, Frank Solensky wrote: > >One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results > >but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the > >results if you don't get a very significant response rate > > The problem is *much* worse than that. You have to be confident that > your sampling method actually reflects enough of the Internet to be > valid. Determining how you have reached a valid sample of > administrators would be an interesting problem. Further, it is safe > to assume that administrators for the largest networks are the least > likely to reply, or to reply accurately. > > And then there is the problem of assuming that they understand your > question, and can even count the systems on their networks well > enough to answer accurately... > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
At 12:10 PM -0500 1/23/01, Frank Solensky wrote: >One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results >but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the >results if you don't get a very significant response rate The problem is *much* worse than that. You have to be confident that your sampling method actually reflects enough of the Internet to be valid. Determining how you have reached a valid sample of administrators would be an interesting problem. Further, it is safe to assume that administrators for the largest networks are the least likely to reply, or to reply accurately. And then there is the problem of assuming that they understand your question, and can even count the systems on their networks well enough to answer accurately... --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Jiri Kuthan wrote: > > Hello, > > as the discussion departed from my original question to > the favorite discussion on NAT/ipv6/etc architectural issues, > I would like to re-raise the question: > > "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users > who are behind firewalls and NATs?" Before it goes off into DNS name administration: None that I've heard of. From the perspective of those inside the NAT firewall, the fact that outside world can't tell the size of the hidden network is an advantage. One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the results if you don't get a very significant response rate (I tried something like this a number of years ago when attempting to estimate the proportion of assigned IPv4 addresses were actually being used: expect a healthy degree of skepticism if the queries are coming out of the blue). Even if that were possible or in a world without NATs, though: are you assuming a 1:1 mapping between IP addresses and 'users'? Between mainframes in one direction and folks surrounded by multiple machines in the other, which way do you go? Is there a 'user' associated with a web server; if so, what if you've got a load balancer in front? -- Frank
Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Hello, as the discussion departed from my original question to the favorite discussion on NAT/ipv6/etc architectural issues, I would like to re-raise the question: "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users who are behind firewalls and NATs?" Thanks, Jiri
