nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT IP and Google
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:26:50 -0700
This works out especially well if you are using VOIP behind said NAT. ;-) Owen On May 20, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Kevin Kadow <kkadow () gmail com> wrote:
If at all possible, consider using a NAT pool instead of translating all outbound web traffic to a single IP address. When I ran Tribune's network (with about 15K internal client IPs), we were blacklisted by Google several times due to high query volumes. In the end I built a pair of /24 NAT pools, so for example all internal 10.x.y.124 addresses are translated to "kevin.nat.trb.com". In my experience, Google does temporary blacklisting based both on rate and also for certain types of queries; you can reduce your chance of a ban by using a smart proxy to rate-limit or deny certain types of query, or to choose the source address based on the URL requested, basically have a "low risk" and a "high risk" source address.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google), (continued)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Matthew Petach (May 28)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Mark Andrews (May 21)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT IP and Google Larry Sheldon (May 21)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Damian Menscher (May 21)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT IP and Google Derek Andrew (May 22)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Royce Williams (May 22)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Chris Adams (May 22)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Derek Andrew (May 22)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Chris Garrett (May 20)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Kevin Kadow (May 20)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Owen DeLong (May 21)