filter by reply destination address and then by tcp state established is what i did
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I took him to mean subscribers when he said 8000 connections. > As far as Layer4 connections we're performing NAT for, I'm not totally > sure how to tell. > If I torch the LTE PDN interface, it counts up for awhile and then freezes. > Connection tracking is showing something like 120,000 items but that isn't > strictly stuff we're NAT'ing. Some traffic just passes through. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: 1/15/2018 2:21:54 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 exhaust again > > srcnat is what we use. 1800 connections right now from one section of the > network > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > >> What flavor of NAT does mikrotik implement? >> >> *From:* Chuck McCown >> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 12:07 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 exhaust again >> >> Wonder how heavy we can load that... I would want it to be able to handle >> 8000 connections. >> >> *From:* Steve Jones >> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 12:05 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 exhaust again >> >> ccr1072 >> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>> What are you using? Router NAT or a server or ? >>> >>> *From:* Steve Jones >>> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 11:48 AM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 exhaust again >>> >>> Im not going to lie, we are natting at 1:300 across a handful of publics >>> and have little to no issue, though we really should since the customer >>> router double NATs >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I need to have about /19 worth of customers natted to as few V4s as is >>>> needed to make it work properly. >>>> >>>> We currently have about 3 /21s I think. Don’t want to have to buy a >>>> fourth. >>>> >>>> *From:* Dennis Burgess >>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 11:34 AM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 exhaust again >>>> >>>> >>>> Mikrotik can do that, I have a router with 20k NAT rules natting two >>>> /21s to less than 254 ips .:) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant * >>>> >>>> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant >>>> <http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> – >>>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net >>>> >>>> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com >>>> >>>> Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270> >>>> >>>> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup >>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 12:28 PM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 exhaust again >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dual-stack and CGN? You can get 8:1, 16:1 or even 32:1 out of a single >>>> public IPv4 address. Give 8 customers 8k ports each, or 16 customer 4k >>>> ports each, 32 customers 2k ports each. That's *source* ports, so they're >>>> not limited to 8k, 4k or 2k connections total. You have to look at in both >>>> directions. 10.10.10.10:1024 -> 8.8.8.8:53 and 10.10.10.10:1024 -> >>>> 8.8.4.4:53 mappings are both valid, and it obviously goes a lot deeper >>>> than that. >>>> >>>> Seems to be a whole lot easier than some crazy NAT appliance that's >>>> running the whole network. I haven't done anything like this, but I'm >>>> considering it. I think Juniper even lets you do this with a couple >>>> commands? Yeah, I'm too cheap for that. >>>> >>>> Something else to keep in mind is that most consumer grade routers >>>> still have a fairly limited connection table. My Cambium cnPilot router I >>>> have at home lets you adjust the max table size (up to 8192). Most are 2k >>>> or 4k. While even a low-end MikroTik will give you >100k. >>>> >>>> On 1/15/2018 11:35 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: >>>> >>>> Planning to buy another /21 or some such thing .... again ...... >>>> >>>> � >>>> >>>> So going to attempt to NAT the whole frigging company. >>>> >>>> � >>>> >>>> Seems like I am going in reverse here. >>>> >>>> � >>>> >>>> If we can make NAT work for most customers, then that will buy us time >>>> to build our magic V4 translator gateway box for a V6 only network.� >>>> >>>> � >>>> >>>> Any suggestions on the best way to do this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
