nanog mailing list archives
Re: MAP-E
From: Aled Morris via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:58:45 +0100
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 14:49, Brian J. Murrell <brian () interlinx bc ca> wrote:
Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
I'm a fan of these solutions that (only) use NAT44 in the CPE as this is exactly what they're currently doing, and the CPE vendors have already "solved" the problem of application support (SIP, FTP etc.) at least as far as the end-user is concerned. It seems that introducing an extra layer of NAT at the ISP for NAT444 is creating a range of new problems, not least being scalability. Big CGNAT boxes are expensive. Aled
Current thread:
- MAP-E Baldur Norddahl (Aug 02)
- Re: MAP-E Baldur Norddahl (Aug 04)
- Re: MAP-E Masataka Ohta (Aug 04)