Shishio-san > I think, previous version than IE10.0 does not support both Websocket and SPDY. > But the share is pretty high. > So it would be more useful if you could add the result of old version of IE and latest IE.
Exactly. > If you could add result of IPv6 access to your selected site, it would be more powerful. > Your investigation result would be more adaptable in all of deployment stage.(NAT44 only,NAT44 + NAT64 and NAT44 and IPv6 native.) I'd like to do that. Thanks for your useful suggestion. > Do you know the trend of mobile network? Examining mobile network is our future work. > Yes,I thought you might write another draft for BMWG wg.:-) It's been always on my mind.:-) Regards, kaname (2013/04/05 20:21), Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > Kaname-san > (2013/04/05 19:03), kaname nishizuka wrote: >> Shishio-san >> Thanks, >> >> In response to your questions, >> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-4 >>> Figure 1: The number of sessions of applications. >>> >>> Q.Which browser did you use in your investigation? >> We used the latest Chrome and FireFox. > I think, previous version than IE10.0 does not support both Websocket and > SPDY. > But the share is pretty high. > So it would be more useful if you could add the result of old version of IE > and latest IE. > And cisco and IDC published White Paper of "The Business Case for Delivering > IPv6 Service Now". > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns1017/idc_ipv6_economics.pdf > If you could add result of IPv6 access to your selected site, it would be > more powerful. > Your investigation result would be more adaptable in all of deployment > stage.(NAT44 only,NAT44 + NAT64 and NAT44 and IPv6 native.) > >>> Our investigation shows that the average number of session of active >>> subscriber is 400. >>> >>> Q.Can you show more detail information? The investigation in the commercial >>> network? or test bed? >> We captured traffic of our normal activities. So the answer is "in test bed". >> In a commercial network, the common people activities could be somehow >> different from researchers:) >> However, the existing study is showing that our assumption is not extreme. >> http://www.wand.net.nz/~salcock/someisp/flow_counting/result_page.html > Thanks for information. > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-5.2 >>> (a) was estimated to be 25% at the value during the busy hour of traffic >>> (21:00 pm to 1:00am). >>> >>> Q.Does the estimation come from your investigation on real network? or >>> erlang and someting? >>> What kind of network?Wireless or Wireline?IPv6 enabled network? >> It's from investigation on the real ISP network. >> It's mainly wireline network and partly IPv6-enabled. >> > Thank you for useful information. > Do you know the trend of mobile network? > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-6.1 >>> >>> Q.Is current RFC not enough to measure CGN performance? >>> RFC 3511 Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3511 >>> RFC6645 IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking Methodology >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6645 >>> >> Maybe not, though I've not closely read them. >> As I described in the draft, the CGN performance is limited by the >> combination of throughput, Max Concurrent Sessions and Connection Per Sec. >> Thus we used the test bed(StarBED) with powerful calculation power to >> emulate all subscribers. >> The assumption of the average subscriber was important for setting up the >> environment. > Yes,I thought you might write another draft for BMWG wg.:-) > > Regards, > -Shishio > > > > >> Best regards, >> kaname >> >> (2013/04/05 16:02), Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: >>> I read this documents. >>> I think this draft would be useful to consider CGP deployment for service >>> providers. >>> >>> And I have question. >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-4 >>> Figure 1: The number of sessions of applications. >>> >>> Q.Which browser did you use in your investigation? >>> >>> Our investigation shows that the average number of session of active >>> subscriber is 400. >>> >>> Q.Can you show more detail information? The investigation in the commercial >>> network? or test bed? >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-5.2 >>> (a) was estimated to be 25% at the value during the busy hour of traffic >>> (21:00 pm to 1:00am). >>> >>> Q.Does the estimation come from your investigation on real network? or >>> erlang and someting? >>> What kind of network?Wireless or Wireline?IPv6 enabled network? >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-6.1 >>> >>> Q.Is current RFC not enough to measure CGN performance? >>> RFC 3511 Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3511 >>> RFC6645 IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking Methodology >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6645 >>> >>> Regards, >>> -Shishio >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt >>> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:12:24 -0700 >>> From: <[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> >>> >>> Title : Carrier-Grade-NAT (CGN) Deployment Considerations. >>> Author(s) : Kaname Nishizuka >>> Filename : draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt >>> Pages : 16 >>> Date : 2013-03-28 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document provides deployment considerations for Carrier-Grade- >>> NAT (CGN) based on the verification result include the investigation >>> of the number of sessions of applications. The verification was >>> conducted in StarBED which is one of the largest scale network >>> experiment environment in Japan. A million of subscribers was >>> emulated and it revealed the realistic behavior of CGN. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00 >>> >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSAWG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> -- ---- Kaname Nishizuka Innovative Architecture Center NTT Communications Corporation +81-50-3812-4704 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
