nanog mailing list archives
Re: CGNAT Solutions
From: Robert Blayzor <rblayzor.bulk () inoc net>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:41:37 -0400
On 4/29/20 10:29 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
There are some numbers in there for instance talking about 1024 ports per subscriber as a good number. In presentations I have seen over time, people typically talk about 512-4096 as being a good number for the bulk port allocation size.
So as a happy medium of about 2048 ports per subscriber, that's roughly a 32:1 NAT/IP over-subscription ? -- inoc.net!rblayzor XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net PGP: https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/
Current thread:
- Re: CGNAT Solutions, (continued)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Brandon Martin (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Ca By (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Masataka Ohta (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Ca By (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Masataka Ohta (Apr 30)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Robert Blayzor (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Tarko Tikan (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions james jones (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Robert Blayzor (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG (Apr 29)
- RE: CGNAT Solutions Aaron Gould (Apr 29)
- Re: CGNAT Solutions Jared Geiger (Apr 28)