nanog mailing list archives
Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:38:22 +0000
On 23/01/2013 02:57, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
The overwhelming need for it is orthogonal to any schemes for hashing NAT source/dest ports.
There are several conflicting requirements, including: - requirement to run a business which makes money - constraints on IPv4 addresses which mandate NAT - law enforcement requirements, mandating either logging / port tracking - network telemetry law enforcement requirements aren't generally an issue until you get hit up by a LEA / court order, at which point they become critical to ensuring that your management doesn't end up displaying contempt of court. For some reason, management can get quite excited about this - more so than any enthusiasm they might ever show for good quality network telemetry. Nick
Current thread:
- CGN fixed/hashed nat question Eric Oosting (Jan 21)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Nick Hilliard (Jan 21)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Eric Oosting (Jan 21)
- RE: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Dan Wing (Jan 22)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Dobbins, Roland (Jan 22)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Nick Hilliard (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Sander Steffann (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Randy Bush (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Nick Hilliard (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Dobbins, Roland (Jan 22)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Jean-Francois Mezei (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Christian Kratzer (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Nick Hilliard (Jan 21)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Simon Perreault (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)