nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution
From: Simon Perreault <simon () per reau lt>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:19:23 -0400
Le 2014-06-30 09:05, Roland Dobbins a écrit :
On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Simon Perreault <simon () per reau lt> wrote:Why? Cause that (per-subscriber limits on ports and memory) is exactly what we recommend in RFC 6888...<https://app.box.com/s/a3oqqlgwe15j8svojvzl> I can't tell you how many times I've received frantic 4AM calls about NATted wireless networks going down due to this sort of thing. It's a real problem.
If you're saying "NAT is bad", then sure, ok, but that's besides the point. Otherwise, then I don't know what your point is. Oh, actually I think I get it. You're trying to sell something.
Also, there are horizontal behaviors which are undesirable, as well.
Yeah, and let's not forget the diagonal ones either. Simon
Current thread:
- Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Skeeve Stevens (Jun 29)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Robert Drake (Jun 29)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Roland Dobbins (Jun 30)
- RE: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Tony Wicks (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Roland Dobbins (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Simon Perreault (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Roland Dobbins (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Simon Perreault (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Roland Dobbins (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Roland Dobbins (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Robert Drake (Jun 29)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Stepan Kucherenko (Jun 30)
- RE: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Tony Wicks (Jun 30)
- Re: Cheap LSN/CGN/NAT444 Solution Mark Andrews (Jun 30)