> is the setup above feasible for networks with several thousand users
> (between 5-10k)

Performance-wise, as a developer, I don't really have a means to test
that level of traffic. Maybe somebody else in the list has that
information.

Functionality-wise though, Jool won't stop you. Just make sure that
you have enough IPv4 transport addresses to mask all of that.

Also, I'd suggest that you keep a decent understanding of this:
https://jool.mx/en/usr-flags-pool4.html#--max-iterations

> is there a latency induced for throughputs of more than a gb ?

Not that I know of. (Why would that happen?)

> exists the possibility of defining a pool of ipv4 addresses when
> nat64-ing and not doing 1-to-1 specific rules ?

Yes: https://jool.mx/en/pool4.html
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM Petre Tudor <petre.tu...@cte.ro> wrote:
>
> hello
>
> i am trying to minimize the usage of the ipv4 addresses by assigning to
> the users only ipv6 and nat64-ing them to the internet. (the final goal
> would be to assign routable ipv4 only to those users who really need
> them and pay them as an extra service; the normal users who don't have
> specific requirements will only receive an ipv6 address and get nat64
> for the only-ipv4 destinations.
>
> before i start i have a few questions regarding the jool features
> (please excuse if they are too trivial, I am new in this knowledge area):
>
> - is the setup above feasible for networks with several thousand users
> (between 5-10k)
>
> - is there a latency induced for throughputs of more than a gb ?
>
> - exists the possibility of defining a pool of ipv4 addresses when
> nat64-ing and not doing 1-to-1 specific rules ?
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
> petre
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jool-list mailing list
> Jool-list@nic.mx
> https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list
_______________________________________________
Jool-list mailing list
Jool-list@nic.mx
https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list

Reply via email to