Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

[Joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 9/8/11 08:49 , Lyle Giese wrote:
> Can we really push an IPv6 agenda for CDN's when IPv6 routing at high
> backend levels is still not complete?  I certainly don't have the
> 'clout' to push that, but full routing between Cogent and HE needs to be
> fixed.

It's your job to run your network such that you have connectivity to the
destinations your customers want to reach not Cogent's or HE's...

> Lyle Giese
> LCR Computer Services, Inc.
>
> On 09/08/11 10:04, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> > I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that
> > the edge of Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is
> > not just an ISP problem but one where content providers and services
> > that is the users need to get from here to there in good order.
> >
> > So
> >
> > What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them?
> > What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once
> > they are on IPv6 tails?
> >
> > Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not
> > do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from
> > a CGN?
> > and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who pays?
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > > ______________________________________________________________________