nanog mailing list archives
Re: CGNAT Solutions
From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:45:10 -0700
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:46 PM Masataka Ohta < mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
Ca By wrote:You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internalportrange it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses. If you can do that, you can get rid of the programmatic state trackingentirelyand just use static translations for TCP and UDP which, while nice, is impractical. You're about 95% of the way to LW4o6 or MAP at thatpoint.Interesting. Then, if you can LW4o6 or MAP, you are about 95% of the way to E2ENAT with complete end to end transparency using IPv4 only, which means we don't need IPv6 with 4to6 NAT lacking the transparency. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00 Masataka OhtaSince we are talking numbers ans hard factsI'm rather interested in not numbers but facts on the E2E transparency, because, without the transparency, legacy NAT44 should be enough. But, as you insist on numbers:42% of usa accesses google on ipv6 https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.htmlThe proper number to be considered should be percentage of IPv6 hosts which can not communicate with IPv4 only hosts. Isn't it 0%?
For those of us running networks, especially growing networks, uniquely numbering hosts is our goal and ipv6 fits that task. For many networks, rfc1918 space is not sufficiently large to number end-points. Around the world, there are many networks that fit this. For those same network, nat44 scale is also a painful and costly effort. To that end, ipv6 / 464xlat provides the one-two punch of uniquely numbering nodes and by-passing NAT44 or NAT64 for the majority of traffic we see (google, fb, netflix ...) Being able to offer a product that disallows access to ipv4 is a non-goal So far, i just talked about why eyeball networks deploy ipv6 — which is basic and sensible engineering and economics. A similar set of forces are at work on the content / cloud / iot side.
Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: CGNAT Solutions, (continued)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Masataka Ohta (Apr 28)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Brandon Martin (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Masataka Ohta (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Ca By (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions William Herrin (Apr 29)
- Message not available
- Re: CGNAT Solutions William Herrin (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Brandon Martin (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Ca By (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Masataka Ohta (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Ca By (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Masataka Ohta (Apr 30)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Robert Blayzor (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Tarko Tikan (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions james jones (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Robert Blayzor (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG (Apr 29)
- RE: CGNAT Solutions Aaron Gould (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Jared Geiger (Apr 28)