Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Dan Wing wrote:

> > 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.
>
> If the hosts are running DHCP, and the ISP is running the DHCP
> server?  I guess they will fall back (after a while) to link-local
> and continue on their merry way.

That's some pretty big IFs. Even if I were using DHCP to get the prefix
from my service provider via DHCP-PD, I'd back-stop that with some
form of local DHCP server and deal with the need for manual intervention
when the provider renumbered me.

In my experience, getting renumbered is a rare enough experience that
I don't pay Comcast $60/year for a static address.

Owen

> > > 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
>
> > > -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.porter () ukbroadband com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () 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
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > > >