Re: CGNAT Solutions

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:06 AM Masataka Ohta <
mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:

> Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> > > If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
> > > CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
> >
> > Yes, you can get rid of the logging by statically allocating ranges of
> > port numbers to a particular customer.
>
> And, that was the original concern.
>
> > What I was referring to, though, was the programmatic state tracking of
> > the {external IP, external port}-{internal IP, internal port} mappings.
>
> OK.
>
> >   You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internal port
> > range it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses.  If you
> > can do that, you can get rid of the programmatic state tracking entirely
> > and just use static translations for TCP and UDP which, while nice, is
> > impractical.  You're about 95% of the way to LW4o6 or MAP at that point.
>
> Interesting. Then, if you can LW4o6 or MAP, you are about 95% of the
> way to E2ENAT with complete end to end transparency using IPv4 only,
> which means we don't need IPv6 with 4to6 NAT lacking the transparency.
>
>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta

Since we are talking numbers ans hard facts

42% of usa accesses google on ipv6

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html




>