Dear All,
We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand like
A10 or Citrix.
Please any advice regarding the three brands and what are the advantages and
disadvantages for each one?
Regards,
What features and scale do you need? Assume with NAT you are performing some
levels of firewall security and serving applications?
Sincerely,
Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services
BroadAspect
E: nellerm...@broadaspect.com
P: 703-297-4639
F: 703-996-4443
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CON
You are using a Cisco what for NAT? And which products are you considering?
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand
> like A10 or Citrix.
>
> Please any advice regarding th
Yes, we are using ASR1004 for NAT, we are considering A10 or Citrix or F5.
we’ve not decided till now!
maybe we change it to another product, if anyone give us a better solution.
this will be used for ISP’s users.
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Hunter Fuller wrote:
>
> You ar
On 16/Dec/15 12:45, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> Yes, we are using ASR1004 for NAT, we are considering A10 or Citrix or F5.
> we’ve not decided till now!
> maybe we change it to another product, if anyone give us a better solution.
>
> this will be used for ISP’s users.
The ASR10
In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are facing some
issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat problems!
Ahmed,
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/Dec/15 12:45, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>
>> Yes, we a
On 16/Dec/15 18:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are
> facing some issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat
> problems!
This could be a function of the size of your ESP.
The 5Gbps ESP can handle 256,000 NAT sessio
On 15/12/15 10:08, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand like
> A10 or Citrix.
If you are willing to rephrase it to "we are using Cisco IOS for
NATting, we'd like to change it to another platform or brand", you may
want to tak
We have the ASR1006 ESP40's handling 25,000+home broadband users running NAT
and barely breaking a sweat. What ESP are you using ?
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ahmed Munaf
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 5:36 AM
To: Mark Tinka
Cc:
IPv4 NAT!? Free yourself from the tyranny of shared addresses. ;-)
http://www.comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg
Jason
On 12/15/15, 1:08 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ahmed Munaf"
wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another b
If it were only so easy...
On Dec 16, 2015 4:41 PM, "Livingood, Jason" <
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> IPv4 NAT!? Free yourself from the tyranny of shared addresses. ;-)
>
> http://www.comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
+100
Nobody should have to be doing NAT today.
We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and SYN/ACK
would
be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and increase it by 100ms
each year.
Mark
On 17/12/2015, at 9:38 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
hi folkx
On 12/17/15 at 10:28am, Mark Andrews wrote:
> We need to make IPv4 painful to use.
already is too crowded
> Adding delay between SYN and SYN/ACK would be one way to achieve this.
change tcp windoow size to 1 byte per packet or decrease from 1500 byte
packets, more traffic they use,
This doesn't put pain on those that have enough addresses that they don't need
to NAT yet. We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
Mark
On 17/12/2015, at 10:39 AM, Charles Monson wrote:
> We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and SYN
wrote:
>
> This doesn't put pain on those that have enough addresses that they don't need
> to NAT yet. We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>
> Mark
>
>> On 17/12/2015, at 10:39 AM, Charles Monson
>> wrote:
>>
>> We ne
On 12/16/2015 17:28, Mark Andrews wrote:
+100
Nobody should have to be doing NAT today.
We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and
SYN/ACK would be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and
increase it by 100ms each year.
If it is such a good idea, why
On 12/16/2015 18:14, Mel Beckman wrote:
Mark,
Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
will get us all there eventually.
I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you
feel pain and do what I want. :)
That's what I'm talking about.
But this IS
to make you feel pain
> and do what I want. :)
>
> -mel beckman
>
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't put pain on those that have enough addresses that they don't
>> need
>> to NAT yet. We need to put som
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not
On 12/16/2015 19:22, Randy Bush wrote:
We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
what keeps the cows in the
On 12/16/2015 04:14 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you feel pain and
do what I want.:)
"I don't like what you eat. Lets put a TAX on it to make you feel pain
and do what I want."
There. Fixed it for you.
>
> We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and
> SYN/ACK would
> be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and increase it by
> 100ms each year.
It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to use.
At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
This. I'm in an enterp
At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
This. I'm in an enterp
Publicly shame them by listing the ones who don't fully support IPv6. List
them here, so we know to choose their competition.
On Dec 16, 2015 8:39 PM, "Berry Mobley" wrote:
> At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> > We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>>
>> this is t
> It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to
> use.
it is. but, judging by people's actions, in many cases it seems less
painful than going to ipv6. off-pissing, but reality.
randy
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:52 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/Dec/15 18:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>
>> In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are
>> facing some issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat
>> problems!
we are using ESP 20
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
>
> We have the ASR1006 ESP40's handling 25,000+home broadband users running NAT
> and barely breaking a sweat. What ESP are you using ?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:n
On 17/12/2015 17:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> we are using ESP 20
You haven't said what you mean by "better". This could mean "faster" or
"copes with more sessions" or "cheaper". If your ISP is large, then it
might be "cost per user is lower" or "able to cope with the number of users".
Nick
At $dayjob$ (which is a university) we spoke to several vendors and eventually
gave A10 Networks Thunder 3030 a test drive.
It satisfied our requirements and fit our budget. Most of our NAT traffic
originates from our undergraduate student population. Peak workload during
2015 fall term was
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>
> this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
> load of crap.
>
> make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. rep
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Nat
>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing feature parity
>
In message <01de01d13900$fe364dd0$faa2e970$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes:
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
> Cc: North American Network Operator
>> make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
>> previous sentence 42 times.
>
> I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
> to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
> when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
> allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
> gate
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> On 17/12/2015 17:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>> we are using ESP 20
>
> You haven't said what you mean by "better". This could mean "faster" or
> "copes with more sessions" or "cheaper". If your ISP is large, then it
> might be "cost per us
> At $dayjob$ (which is a university) we spoke to several vendors and
> eventually gave A10 Networks Thunder 3030 a test drive.
>
> It satisfied our requirements and fit our budget. Most of our NAT traffic
> originates from our undergraduate student population. Peak workload during
On 12/17/15, 2:27 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Chuck Church"
wrote:
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
>Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
>Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
>Subject:
On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>>
>> this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
>
>Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
>
>>
On 12/16/15, 8:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Berry Mobley"
wrote:
>At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
>> > We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>>
>>this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
>>crap.
>>
>>make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially
On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
>will get us all there eventually.
Some companies will run out of IPv4 addresses before others. When that
happens, they have four choices:
1. Buy IPv4
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 13:35 , Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
> wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
>> will get us all there eventually.
Not all problems are well solved by markets, c
In message , Lee Howard writes:
>
>
> On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
> wrote:
>
> >Mark,
> >
> >Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
> >will get us all there eventually.
>
> Some companies will run out of IPv4 addresses before others. W
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 04:20:48PM -0500, Lee Howard wrote:
> On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing
> > feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP.
> > The stance of not allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 07:30:35PM +0300, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >
> > On 17/12/2015 17:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> >> we are using ESP 20
> >
> > You haven't said what you mean by "better". This could mean "faster" or
> > "copes with more sessi
Hi Matthew,
> The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
> from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
> addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's
> just confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for
> persuading people to
Congratulations, Sander, on proving Matthew's point quite consicely.
Matthew pointed out reasons that people don't like this setup, and reasons
that they *AREN'T DEPLOYING IPV6*. And you blow them off with, "but it's
not the best way." Great, I think I probably even agree with you that
using the
Hi Jeff,
> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
I partially agree with you. If people have learned how IPv6 works, deploye
Sander Steffann wrote:
> So yes, people have to deploy IPv6 as soon as possible, but it's not
> the job of the IETF to fix all of the obstacles.
What we need is for the IETF to stop being an obstacle.
More to the point, as the IETF's opinion is based on the consensus of
its working groups, it wou
I'm preparing some slides on this topic for an upcoming webinar our marketing
team has roped me into :-)
I'd love to hear from people on what they perceive and the real barriers they
have seen with regards to IPv6 in your environment.
I certainly have the list from our IT department. After muc
: "North American Network Operators' Group"
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 6:46:13 PM
Subject: Re: Nat
In message <01de01d13900$fe364dd0$faa2e970$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes:
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.or
Hi,
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> "A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
> myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
> clueless."
>
>
>
> OOL
>
>
> A 100 gallon fuel tank is fine for most forms of tran
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
>
>>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
>>to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
>>when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
>>allowing the DHCP server to assign a
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
>> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
>> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
>> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
>
> I partia
Hi Nick,
> Unfortunately, this turned into a religious war a long time ago and the
> primary consideration with regard to dhcpv6 has not been what's best for
> ipv6 or ipv6 users or ipv6 operators, but ensuring that dhcpv6 is
> sufficiently crippled as a protocol that it cannot be deployed without
This is OT of NAT, but follows the existing discussion.
Since discussion has warped around to host configuration DHCP (again), it might
be useful to review discussions dating from 2011:
The stupidity of trying to "fix” DHCPv6
and
The Business Wisdom of trying to "fix” DHCPv6
which
James R Cutler wrote:
> All that is necessary is for us to end the years of religious debate
> of DHCP vs RA and to start providing solutions that meet business
> management needs.
Heresy! Burn him!
Nick
On 19 December 2015 at 15:49, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
>
If you want to deploy IPv6 NO
Hi Matthew,
> I have multiple sets of clients on a particular subnet; the subnet
> is somewhat geographically distributed; I have multiple routers
> on the subnet. I currently am able to explicitly associate clients
> with the most appropriate router for them in v4.
> How can I do this using only
"Mike Hammett"
Cc: "Mark Andrews" , "North American Network Operators' Group"
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:55:03 AM
Subject: Re: Nat
Hi.
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> "A single /64 has never been enough
l Message -
>
> From: "Daniel Corbe"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: "Mark Andrews" , "North American Network Operators' Group"
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:55:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Nat
>
> Hi.
>
>> O
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we can
>> label some of these past decisions as ridiculous and hopefully a lesson for
>> next time.
>
> There isn
> On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we
>>> can label some of these past decisions as r
On 20 December 2015 at 17:57, Mike Hammett wrote:
> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating 16 bits
> worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4 Internet?
>
Does those extra bits som
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM
To: Chuck Church
Cc: 'Matthew Petach' ; 'North American Network
Operators' Group'
Subject: Re: Nat
>I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in u
> I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business
> customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard
> time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside
> of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4
> devices
> s
PM
Subject: RE: Nat
> I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business
> customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard
> time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside
> of networking folk such as the NANOG members.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:11:53PM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> > I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business
> > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard
> > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside
> > of networkin
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 09:23:04PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote:
> I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business
> customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard
> time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside
> of networking folk
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Most people couldn't care less and just want the Internet on their device
> to work.
Well, if the best practice for CPE routers included as a matter of course
the subnets "connected to internet", "local only (e.g. IoT)" and "guest
network"
dy Fischer"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "North American Network Operators Group"
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 9:34:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nat
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote:
Most people couldn't care less and j
merican Network
> Operators' Group'
> Subject: Re: Nat
>
>
> >I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
> wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default for
> homenet devices. A single /64 means you >hav
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Palmer
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:29 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Nat
>Depends on how many devices you have on it. Once you start filling your
home with Internet of Unpatchable Security Ho
-Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus@nanog.org] On Behalf
> Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Sunday, 20 December, 2015 20:37
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: Nat
>
> We can't get people to use passwords jud
yet have multiple
> separate L2 and L3 networks to keep the "crap" isolated.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus@nanog.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Mike Hammett
> > Sent: Sunday, 20 December, 2015 20:37
> &
pplication
traffic can also pass. The discovery multicast packets could be filtered at
any point within the network, also.
However, access control isn't what you asked about. You claimed that
multiple L2 segments broke service discovery, and I refuted that point.
> For years I'
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 03:03:18PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
> > from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
> > addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's
> > just confusing a
Hi,
> > > persuading people to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone
> > > already understands DHCP in the v4 world.
> > enterprise) and once they stop thinking "I want to do everything
> > in IPv6 in exactly the same way as I have always done in IPv4"
exactly.
as my thoughts often gather at
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:06:26 PM
Subject: RE: Nat
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. If people choose
to be the authors of their own misfortunes, that is their choice. I know a good
many folks who are not members of NANOG yet have multipl
--- chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Chuck Church"
but I'm just having a hard time believing Joe Sixpack will be applying
business networking principals such as micro-segmenting to a home network
with 3 to 7 devices on it. If anything, these complexities we keep
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Chuck Church wrote:
insist on "NAT/PAT != firewall". Well, a router routing everything it sees
is even less of a firewall. I'm really not trying to be argumentative here,
but I'm just having a hard time believing Joe Sixpack will be applying
I'm surprised that noone of the home wifi router folk haven't cornered the
market on that one in terms of client separation. Most people don't need the
devices to talk to each other so by default all ports on different VLANs ..
192.168.0-8.x etc
Internet of things security out of the box. Web
In article <4102d692-a315-4c38-a2cb-54f96999e...@lboro.ac.uk> you write:
>I'm surprised that noone of the home wifi router folk haven't cornered the
>market on that
>one in terms of client separation. Most people don't need the devices to talk
>to each
>other so by default all ports on different
Alan Buxey wrote:
> Most people don't need the devices to talk to each other
A lot of home networking uses mDNS - partitioning off devices will break
things like printing and chromecast and using your phone as a remote
control for your media players, etc. ad nauseam.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch
We already have CPE vendors shipping with "guest" ssids. These
require a seperate /64 and are usually treated as external to the
home network. With IPv4 you grab a seperate chunck of rfc1918 space
and nat that as well as the main chuck of space. For IPv6 you need
multiple /64s from t
In message , Tony Fin
ch writes:
> Alan Buxey wrote:
>
> > Most people don't need the devices to talk to each other
>
> A lot of home networking uses mDNS - partitioning off devices will break
> things like printing and chromecast and using your phone as a remote
> control for your media player
with 10 RIRs.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Daniel Corbe"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: "Mark Andrews" , "No
Not quite true…
"What happens when we have to make an incompatible change to the fundamental
packet header?” is the real challenge.
It happens that in the case of IPv4, we didn’t hit that particular wall until
we needed a larger address.
In IPv6, it will probably be something related to the ab
--- ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
From: Jared Mauch
I'd love to hear from people on what they perceive and
the real barriers they have seen with regards to IPv6
in your environment.
---
In the enterprise; managers that don't (and don't want
On 21/Dec/15 07:22, Jason Baugher wrote:
>
> >From a service provider perspective, I feel we have 2 choices. The first is
> to spend a lot of time trying to educate our customers on how networks work
> and how to manage theirs. Personally, I'd rather have my fingernails pulled
> out. The second,
Owen DeLong writes:
>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
>> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating
>> 16 bits worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4
>> Internet?
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong writes:
>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
>>> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating
>>> 16 bits worth of s
Comments inline
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>
>> Owen DeLong writes:
On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of
subnets
Hello,
Does anyone use Citrix Netscaler MPX 14000 as a CGNAT for more than 25K
users?
Regards,
On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
gateway to
On 12/19/2015 07:17 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Jeff,
It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
I partially agree with you. I
On 1/7/16, 7:39 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Doug Barton"
wrote:
>On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
>
>>> I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
>>> to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
>>> when it comes to
Donald Stahl writes:
> When an ISP's caching name servers ignore your 3600 TTL and
> substitute an 86400 TTL you end up disconnected for ~12 hours
> instead of ~30 minutes-
You write "when" rather than "if" - is ignoring reasonable TTLs
current practice?
(Ignoring routing updates for small route
We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is
the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate
with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations
in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP
Hello,
as we are running out of ipv4 addresses we started to think of dual stack
deployment in our network and that means we will soon need to have some NAT
in place (NAT44).However I am curios to find how do you manage NAT logs?
Considering the fact that we will need to use overload for pools I
Hello NANOG community. I was directed here by our network administrator
since she is on vacation. Luckily, I minored in Computer Science so I have
some familiarity.
We have a small satellite campus of around 170 devices that share one
external IPv4 and IPv6 address via NAT for internet traffic
1 - 100 of 756 matches
Mail list logo
