nanog mailing list archives

Re: NAT444 or ?

From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault () viagenie ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:29:16 -0400

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 for not breaking applications, not so good for scalability. RFC 4787
section 4.1 makes it a MUST.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

Current thread:

Re: NAT444 or ?, (continued)
- - - Re: NAT444 or ? Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 07)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? David Israel (Sep 07)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? Mike Jones (Sep 08)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Sep 08)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 09)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 09)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 13)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 13)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? Simon Perreault (Sep 07)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
    - RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
    - Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 09)