Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/25/21 18:12, Masataka Ohta wrote:



So are IP entities behind NAT. So?


I still don't understand your point.

Are you asserting that NAT'ed devices do not have an IP address?

Mark.

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Masataka Ohta]

Mark Tinka wrote:


So what I'm trying to understand is, despite whether a connection is
pure or NAT'ed, how does a device on the Internet expect to
communicate without an IP address?


So are IP entities behind NAT. So?

Masataka Ohta

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/25/21 08:29, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


I’m typing this on an LTE UE on our network with a NAT’d IPv4 IP address.

Feels relevant.


We may be missing each other here...

From the point of view of TCP/IP, a node behind a CGN has a unique IP 
address.


So what I'm trying to understand is, despite whether a connection is 
pure or NAT'ed, how does a device on the Internet expect to communicate 
without an IP address?


Mark.

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

I’m typing this on an LTE UE on our network with a NAT’d IPv4 IP address. 

Feels relevant.

—L.B.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
l...@6by7.net 
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ



> On Oct 24, 2021, at 10:58 PM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/25/21 01:35, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 
>> 
>> So are IP entities behind NAT. So?
> 
> Your point being...?
> 
> Mark.

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/25/21 01:35, Masataka Ohta wrote:



So are IP entities behind NAT. So?


Your point being...?

Mark.

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Masataka Ohta]

Ca By wrote:


I do not believe it is either technically nor economically feasible
to run a 4g or 5g network without an ip address on the ue.


So are IP entities behind NAT. So?

Masataka Ohta

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/24/21 19:19, Ca By wrote:

Nodes in an ip network require ip addresses. 4G and 5G are ip networks 
for both voice and data.


I do not believe it is either technically nor economically feasible to 
run a 4g or 5g network without an ip address on the ue.


*shaking_my_head*

For the avoidance of doubt, Cameron is speaking sense.

Mark.

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/24/21 18:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:



Are you saying mobile terminals must be identified by IP addresses?


Ummh, how else do you expect a player on the Internet to, ummh, play?

Mark.

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Ca By]

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:28 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Ca By wrote:
>
> > First, consider that the 3  major cell carriers in the usa each have
> > 100 million customers.  Also, consider they all now have a home
> > broadband angle. Where do 100 million ipv4 addresses come from?  Not
> > rfc 1918, not arin, … and we are just talking about customer ip
> > addresses, not considering towers, backend systems, call centers,
> > retail ….
>
> Are you saying mobile terminals must be identified by IP addresses?


Nodes in an ip network require ip addresses. 4G and 5G are ip networks for
both voice and data.

I do not believe it is either technically nor economically feasible to run
a 4g or 5g network without an ip address on the ue.


>
> Masataka Ohta
>

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Masataka Ohta]

Ca By wrote:


First, consider that the 3  major cell carriers in the usa each have
100 million customers.  Also, consider they all now have a home
broadband angle. Where do 100 million ipv4 addresses come from?  Not
rfc 1918, not arin, … and we are just talking about customer ip
addresses, not considering towers, backend systems, call centers,
retail ….


Are you saying mobile terminals must be identified by IP addresses?

Masataka Ohta

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Michael Thomas]

On 10/23/21 11:52 AM, Ca By wrote:



On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 10:33 AM Michael Thomas  wrote:

So I'm curious how the mobile operators deploying ipv6 to the
handsets are dealing with ipv4. The simplest would be to get the
phone a routable ipv4 address, but that would seemingly exacerbate
the reason they went to v6 in the first place.

First, consider that the 3  major cell carriers in the usa each have 
100 million customers.  Also, consider they all now have a home 
broadband angle. Where do 100 million ipv4 addresses come from?  Not 
rfc 1918, not arin, … and we are just talking about customer ip 
addresses, not considering towers, backend systems, call centers, 
retail ….


So the genesis of 464xlat / rfc 6877 is that ipv4 cannot go where we 
need to go, the mobile architecture must be ipv6 to be comply with the 
e2e principle and not constrain the scaling of the customers / edge. 
Other cell carriers believe in operating many unique ipv4 networks … 
like a 10.0.0.0/8  per metro, but even that breaks 
down and cannot scale… and you end up with proxies / nats / sbcs 
everywhere just to make internal apps like ims work, which is a lot of 
state.


464, that's what i was looking for... there are so many transition 
schemes i wasn't sure which one they chose. So it's essentially double 
NAT'ing. Does that require TURN too for streaming? I can't remember what 
the limitations of STUN are.




Are carriers NAT'ing somewhere along the line? If so, where? Like
does the phone encapsulate v4 in 4-in-6? Or does the phone get a
net 10 address and it gets NAT'd by the carrier?


~80% of traffic goes to fb, goog, yt, netflix, bing, o364, hbomax, 
apple tv, … all of which are ipv6. So, only 20% of traffic requires 
nat, when you have ipv6. I am hoping tiktoc and aws move to be default 
on for ipv6 soon.


Yeah, aws is the most glaring since it probably hosts a significant 
portion of the long tail. it appears that aws only supports v6 with 
vpn's. Google only appears to support v6 if you use their load balancer. 
Sad.


Mike

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

[Ca By]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 10:33 AM Michael Thomas  wrote:

> So I'm curious how the mobile operators deploying ipv6 to the handsets are
> dealing with ipv4. The simplest would be to get the phone a routable ipv4
> address, but that would seemingly exacerbate the reason they went to v6 in
> the first place.
>
First, consider that the 3  major cell carriers in the usa each have 100
million customers.  Also, consider they all now have a home broadband
angle. Where do 100 million ipv4 addresses come from?  Not rfc 1918, not
arin, … and we are just talking about customer ip addresses, not
considering towers, backend systems, call centers, retail ….

So the genesis of 464xlat / rfc 6877 is that ipv4 cannot go where we need
to go, the mobile architecture must be ipv6 to be comply with the e2e
principle and not constrain the scaling of the customers / edge. Other cell
carriers believe in operating many unique ipv4 networks … like a 10.0.0.0/8
per metro, but even that breaks down and cannot scale… and you end up with
proxies / nats / sbcs everywhere just to make internal apps like ims work,
which is a lot of state.

Are carriers NAT'ing somewhere along the line? If so, where? Like does the
> phone encapsulate v4 in 4-in-6? Or does the phone get a net 10 address and
> it gets NAT'd by the carrier?
>

~80% of traffic goes to fb, goog, yt, netflix, bing, o364, hbomax, apple
tv, … all of which are ipv6. So, only 20% of traffic requires nat, when you
have ipv6. I am hoping tiktoc and aws move to be default on for ipv6 soon.

The nats dont scale well and take the brunt of attacks, so services that
require nat suffer. Real shame, but they have a path to improve performance
by deploying ipv6.  Thats why performance driven companies use ipv6 (fb,
goog, akamai, …)

>
> It seems also for mobile carriers there is incentive for as much transit
> as possible for native v6 to the servers. Or is the deployment of v6 mainly
> within the carrier network itself and it's NAT'd somewhere?
>
> Basically what does a typical v6/v4 architecture look like for a mobile
> carrier these days?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 10/23/21 8:13 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Ca By  wrote:
>
> 87% of mobiles in the usa are ipv6
>
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
>
>
>
> Agreed. When they have to connect to an IPv4 only host, they do some type
> of AFTR. These devices have never known a world outside of this situation.
> That is a major difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Bryan Fields
>>
>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
>> http://bryanfields.net
>
>
>

ipv4 on mobile networks

[Michael Thomas]

So I'm curious how the mobile operators deploying ipv6 to the handsets 
are dealing with ipv4. The simplest would be to get the phone a routable 
ipv4 address, but that would seemingly exacerbate the reason they went 
to v6 in the first place. Are carriers NAT'ing somewhere along the line? 
If so, where? Like does the phone encapsulate v4 in 4-in-6? Or does the 
phone get a net 10 address and it gets NAT'd by the carrier?


It seems also for mobile carriers there is incentive for as much transit 
as possible for native v6 to the servers. Or is the deployment of v6 
mainly within the carrier network itself and it's NAT'd somewhere?


Basically what does a typical v6/v4 architecture look like for a mobile 
carrier these days?


Mike


On 10/23/21 8:13 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:




On Oct 23, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Ca By  wrote:

87% of mobiles in the usa are ipv6

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/




Agreed. When they have to connect to an IPv4 only host, they do some 
type of AFTR. These devices have never known a world outside of this 
situation. That is a major difference.







--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net