Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Sep 8, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Dan Wing wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian de Larrinaga [mailto:cdel () firsthand net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:05 AM
> > To: Cameron Byrne
> > Cc: NANOG
> > Subject: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?
> >
> > 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?

Call up and ask for it? Vote with their $$ and their feet?

> > What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once
> > they are on IPv6 tails?

1. Encourage the sites they care about to implement IPv6.
2. Why is being on an IPv6 tail exclusive of being on an IPv4 tail. I would want
        to be on a dual-stack tail (which is what I currently have).

> > 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?
>
> Careful with that idea -- people like their in-home network to continue
> functioning even when their ISP is down or having an outage.  Consider
> a home NAS holding delivering content to the stereo or the television.
> It is possible to eliminate reliance on the ISP's network and still
> have the in-home network function, but it's more difficult than just
> continuing to run NAT44 in the home like today.  (Dual Stack-Lite

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.

> 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
>
> > 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
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > >