-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, "L
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:43 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Leigh Porter'; 'David Israel'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> >>
> >> Good point,
1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter"
>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -Original Message-
> >>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> >>>>> Sent: 08 September 20
>>
>> Good point, but aside from these scaling issues which I expect can be
>> resolved to a point, the more serious issue, I think, is applications
>> that just do not work with double NAT. Now, I have not conducted any
>> serious research into this, but it seems that draft-donley-nat444-
>> impa
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
On Sep 11, 2011 4:33 AM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> > I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not
distributed networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points)
of contact.
>
> The point is that these aggrega
On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not distributed
> networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points) of contact.
The point is that these aggregations of state are quite vulnerable, and
therefore they s
> -Original Message-
> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
> Ip mobility via gtp or mobile ip generally does not work when you nat
> at the
> 'edge'. If you don't want your ip address to change every time you
> change
> cell sites, the nat has to be centralized.
>
> Cb
Inde
On Sep 9, 2011 10:54 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > GPRS/3G/EDGE has made many a mobile provider especially notorious.
>
> All this problematic state should be broken up into smaller instantiations
and distributed as close to the access edge
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 04:48:16 PM Leigh Porter
wrote:
> 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
On Sep 10, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> What we've seen also, with some mobile carriers, is that if you ask them to
> consider distributed IP architectures, they/you quickly realize that IP
> routing isn't really their core business or skill.
Concur. Many/most have essentially become
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 01:52:12 PM Dobbins, Roland
wrote:
> All this problematic state should be broken up into
> smaller instantiations and distributed as close to the
> access edge (RAN, wireline, etc.) as possible in order
> to a) reduce the amount of state concentrated in a
> single
On Friday, September 09, 2011 01:44:08 AM Dan Wing wrote:
> Many of the problems are due to IPv4 address sharing,
> which will be problems for A+P, CGN, HTTP proxies, and
> other address sharing technologies. RFC6269 discusses
> most (or all) of those problems. There are workarounds
> to those pr
On Sep 10, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> GPRS/3G/EDGE has made many a mobile provider especially notorious.
All this problematic state should be broken up into smaller instantiations and
distributed as close to the access edge (RAN, wireline, etc.) as possible in
order to a) reduce the
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 04:52:56 PM Leigh Porter
wrote:
> Well if you buy the 'right' solution then you can re-use
> it elsewhere. Many solutions use multi-purpose
> processing cards to deliver NAT functionality which can
> be used for other stuff such as firewalling or some
> other manor
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 01:41:58 PM Seth Mos wrote:
> The striking thing I picked up is that NTT considers the
> CGN equipment a big black hole where money goes into.
> Because it won't solve their problem now or in the
> future and it becomes effectively a piece of equipment
> they need t
exactly. don't plan to deploy what breaks things for the user edge.
there are two issues here
1/ what ISPs do that might break things at the edge
2/ what edge stuff is doing that will break things at the other end edge of a
connection
It seems a bit odd that ISPs would actively plot to do 1
On Sep 9, 2011, at 11:06 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> Further, if making your hosting network IPv6 is hard, the answer is surely to
> give the job to a CDN operator with v6 clue.
This is a good strategy for payload-type content from unitary sources which
lends itself to caching/redistributi
I can predict the response from the teen dens of the world!
What does CGN mean .. Can't Get Nothing!
Christian
On 9 Sep 2011, at 17:06, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> On Friday 09 Sep 2011 16:25:35 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-
> francois.tremblay
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 16:25:35 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-
francois.tremblay...@videotron.com said:
>
> > A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources,
> > it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide
> > a p
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com said:
> A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources,
> it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide
> a private/non-routed behind-CGN leg for local CDN nodes.
>
> For this to w
> And these 'perceived' routing issues won't be noticed nor are they
> important to CDN's?
> I know what my job is, but that may not matter to the CDN's. Reading
> this thread, I wanted to mention another problem that I feel has an
> effect on this issue.
> Lyle
A very interesting point. In or
>> When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
>> work, it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)
> You could say the same thing about NAT44 from the very start!
many of us did
randy
> -Original Message-
> From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2011 05:10
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
> wor
When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
work, it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)
Warm regards
Carlos
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> As HTTP seems to be a major factor causing a lot of short lived
> connections, and several larg
?
Christian
On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter"
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16 AM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with d
> -Original Message-
> From: jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com [mailto:Jean-
> francois.tremblay...@videotron.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:06 AM
> To: d...@cluenet.de
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> On Wed, Sep 0
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> David Israel wrote, on 09/07/2011 04:21 PM:
> > In theory, this
> > part
> -Original Message-
> From: Leigh Porter [mailto:leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:38 PM
> To: David Israel; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: NAT444 or ?
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Israel
> -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'
...
> The striking thing I picked up is that NTT considers the CGN equipment
> a big black hole where money goes into. Because it won't solve their
> problem now or in the future and it becomes effectively a piece of
> equipment they need to buy and then scrap "soon" after.
It would get scrapped w
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:g...@apnic.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:27 PM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org list; Daniel Roesen
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
>
> On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
&g
gh Porter"
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
>>>>> To: Leigh Porter
>>>
> Can we really push an IPv6 agenda for CDN's when IPv6 routing at high
> backend levels is still not complete? I certainly don't have the
> 'clout' to push that, but full routing between Cogent and HE needs to be
> fixed.
if you are worried about full v4 or v6 or v8-juice routing between
coge
mber 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
.@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 lim
On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter" 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 ?
&g
As HTTP seems to be a major factor causing a lot of short lived
connections, and several large ISPs have demonstrated that large scale
transparent HTTP proxies seem to work just fine, you could also move
the IPv4 port 80 traffic from the CGN to a transparent HTTP proxy. As
well as any benefits from
> -Original Message-
> From: Seth Mos [mailto:seth@dds.nl]
> Sent: 08 September 2011 06:43
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
>
> Op 8 sep 2011, om 07:26 heeft Geoff Huston het volgende geschreven:
>
> >
> > On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM,
> -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 p
Op 8 sep 2011, om 07:26 heeft Geoff Huston het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> It may not be what Randy was referring to above, but as part of that program
> at APNIC32 I reported on the failure rate I am measuring for Teredo. I'm not
> sure its all
On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:d...@cluenet.de]
>> Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12
On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Seth Mos [mailto:seth@dds.nl]
>> Sent: 07 September 2011 20:26
>> To: NANOG
>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>>
>> I think you have the numbers off, h
> -Original Message-
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 23:14
> To: Dorn Hetzel
> Cc: Leigh Porter; NANOG
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:13:26 EDT, Dorn Hetzel said:
>
> &g
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:13:26 EDT, Dorn Hetzel said:
> Perhaps it can be made ever so slightly less ugly if endpoints get an
> "address" that consists of a 32 bit IP address + (n) upper bits of port
> number.
>
> This might be 4 significant bits to share an IP 16 ways, or 8 significant
> bits to s
David Israel wrote, on 09/07/2011 04:21 PM:
> In theory, this
> particular performance problem should only arise when the NAT gear insists on
> a
> unique port per session (which is common, but unnecessary)
What you're describing is known as "endpoint-independent mapping" behaviour. It
is good fo
> -Original Message-
> From: David Israel [mailto:da...@otd.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 21:23
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> On 9/7/2011 3:24 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
> > I think you have the numbers off, he started with 1000 users shari
On 9/7/2011 3:24 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
I think you have the numbers off, he started with 1000 users sharing the same IP, since
you can only do 62k sessions or so and with a "normal" timeout on those
sessions you ran into issues quickly.
Remember that a TCP session is defined not just by the po
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Leigh Porter
wrote:
>
> I was thinking of an average of around 100 sessions per user for working
> out how things scale to start with. It would also be handy to be able to
> apply sensible limits to new sessions, say limit the number of sessions to a
> single destin
>> However these are with a very high address-sharing ratio (several
>> thousands users per address). Using a sparser density (<= 64 users per
>> address) is likely to show much less dramatic user impacts.
>
> I think you have the numbers off, he started with 1000 users sharing
> the same IP,
> -Original Message-
> From: Seth Mos [mailto:seth@dds.nl]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 20:26
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> I think you have the numbers off, he started with 1000 users sharing
> the same IP, since you can only do 62k sessions or
Op 7 sep 2011, om 19:06 heeft jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com het
volgende geschreven:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
>> you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic me
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:06:11PM -0400,
jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com wrote:
> I had the same question. I found Miyakawa-san's presentation has some
> dramatic examples of CGN NAT444 effects using Google Maps:
> http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0011/38297/Miyakawa-APNIC-K
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
> you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting
> in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were
> heavily pushing nat44
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:d...@cluenet.de]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 17:38
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > I'm going to have to deploy N
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
>
> you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting
> in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were
> heavily pushing na
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 11:18
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real
> I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting
in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were
heavily pushing nat444 for the last two years suddenly started to say
"it was not me who
> -Original Message-
> From: Arturo Servin [mailto:arturo.ser...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 01:37
> To: Serge Vautour
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
>
> NAT444 alone is not enough.
>
> You will need to de
> In a typical DS-Lite deployment you won't be using NAT444. One of the
> key advantages of DS-Lite (and A+P, I believe) is that there's only one
> level of NAT between the end user and the public internet.
yep. and in ds-lite that nat is in the core, so you talk to comcast's
lawyers when you nee
* Arturo Servin
> NAT444 alone is not enough.
>
> You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite.
In a typical DS-Lite deployment you won't be using NAT444. One of the
key advantages of DS-Lite (and A+P, I believe) is that there's only one
level of NAT between the end user and
NAT444 alone is not enough.
You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite.
Whilst you still have global v4, use it. The best is to deploy
dual-stack, but that won't last for too long.
Regards,
as-
On 1 Sep 2011, at 15:36, Serge Vautour wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Th
On 9/1/11 11:52 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Serge Vautour wrote:
Hello,
Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For IPv6 to
work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on IPv6. That's not there yet.
IPv6 deployment to end u
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Serge Vautour wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For
> IPv6 to work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on IPv6. That's
> not there yet. IPv6 deployment to end users is not trivial (end user suppo
Hello,
Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For
IPv6 to work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on IPv6. That's not
there yet. IPv6 deployment to end users is not trivial (end user support, CPE
support, etc...). Translation techniques are generally
66 matches
Mail list logo
