Ca By wrote:
The proper number to be considered should be percentage of IPv6
hosts which can not communicate with IPv4 only hosts.
Isn't it 0%?
I think you agree with me, here.
For those of us running networks, especially growing networks, uniquely
numbering hosts is our goal and ipv6 fits
And more and more CPE providers support it.
See RFC8585.
I inititally started using OpenWRT, but now I already got samples from several
vendors.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/4/20 6:16, "NANOG en nombre de Ca By" escribió:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:17 PM
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:17 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> On 4/29/20 10:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >> What allows them to work with v6 in such an efficient manner?
> > A piece of client software is installed on every phone that presents
> > an IPv4 address to the phone and then translates
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:46 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Ca By wrote:
>
> >>>You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internal
> port
> >>> range it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses. If you
> >>> can do that, you can get rid
Ca By wrote:
You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internal port
range it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses. If you
can do that, you can get rid of the programmatic state tracking entirely
and just use static translations for TCP and UDP which, while
On 4/29/20 10:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
What allows them to work with v6 in such an efficient manner?
A piece of client software is installed on every phone that presents
an IPv4 address to the phone and then translates packets to IPv6 for
relay over the network. This works because T-Mobile
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:27 PM Thomas Scott wrote:
> > cell-phone environment. A classic small ISP fills a different niche.
>
> I've dealt with traditional cable and fiber SP environments, but I'm curious
> how the architecture differs so drastically with T-Mobile to allow v6 to work
> so
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:19 AM Ca By wrote:
> Since we are talking numbers ans hard facts
>
> 42% of usa accesses google on ipv6
>
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
Be careful with those stats; they might not be telling you what you
think they are. For example, phone clients
ron
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Robert Blayzor
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:14 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: CGNAT Solutions
On 4/28/20 11:01 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> Depending on how many IPs you need to reclaim and what your
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Robert Blayzor wrote:
So as a happy medium of about 2048 ports per subscriber, that's roughly
a 32:1 NAT/IP over-subscription ?
Yes, around that.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Thank you everyone for the suggestions.
To clarify small ISP.
12K subscribers
35 Gigs traffic at peak.
Growing about 500 megs per month traffic.
John
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:12 PM John Alcock wrote:
> Afternoon,
>
> I run a small ISP in Tennessee. COVID has forced a lot of people to work
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
, April 28, 2020 2:12:29 PM
Subject: CGNAT Solutions
Afternoon,
I run a small ISP in Tennessee. COVID has forced a lot of people to work from
home. I am starting to run low on IP's and need to consider CGNAT.
I do have IPV6 space, but we all know that until we force everyone to move to
IPV
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Robert Blayzor wrote:
One would think a 1000 ports would be enough, but if you have a dozen
devices at home all browsing and doing various things, and with IOT,
etc, maybe not?
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/nat-best-practices.html
How big is your ip pool for CGNAT?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:17 AM Robert Blayzor
wrote:
> On 4/28/20 11:01 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> > Depending on how many IPs you need to reclaim and what your target
> > IP:subscriber ratio is, you may be able to eliminate the need for a lot
> > of
hey,
I'm wondering if there are any real world examples of this, namely in
the realm of subscriber to IP and range of ports required, etc. ie: Is
is a range of 1000 ports enough for one residential subscriber? How
about SMB where no global IP is required.
One would think a 1000 ports would be
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:06 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> >> If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
> >> CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
> >
> > Yes, you can get rid of the
On 4/28/20 11:01 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> Depending on how many IPs you need to reclaim and what your target
> IP:subscriber ratio is, you may be able to eliminate the need for a lot
> of logging by assigning a range of TCP/UDP ports to a single inside IP
> so that the TCP/UDP port number
Brandon Martin wrote:
If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
Yes, you can get rid of the logging by statically allocating ranges of
port numbers to a particular customer.
And, that was the original
On 4/29/20 2:35 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
Yes, you can get rid of the logging by statically allocating ranges of
port numbers to a particular customer.
What I
Brandon Martin wrote:
You can't get rid of all the state tracking without also having the CPE
know which ports to use
If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
On 4/28/20 4:53 PM, William Herrin wrote:
How small is small? Up to a certain size regular NAT with enough
logging to trace back abusers will tend to work fine. if we're talking
single-digit gbps, it may not be worth the effort to consider the
wonderful world of CGNAT.
Depending on how many
Take a look at DANOS for CG-NAT as a free solution or Netgate's TNSR has a
CG-NAT feature https://www.tnsr.com/features
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:57 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> I will say it is much better to consider 464XLAT with NAT64, if the CPEs
> allow it.
I will say it is much better to consider 464XLAT with NAT64, if the CPEs allow
it.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8683/
I’m right now doing a deployment for 25.000.000 customers of an ISP (GPON, DLS
and cellular mix), all the testing has been done, and all doing fine.
I’ve done
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:12 PM John Alcock wrote:
> I run a small ISP in Tennessee. I am starting to run low on IP's and need to
> consider CGNAT.
Hi John,
How small is small? Up to a certain size regular NAT with enough
logging to trace back abusers will tend to work fine. if we're talking
out of our Juniper CGNat solution. All
told, it’s about 50,000 customers behind the (2) MX104’s and (6) MX960’s
getting nat’d.
-Aaron
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of John Alcock
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: CGNAT
Just go with Linux and iptables. It is by far the cheapest option and it
just works.
tir. 28. apr. 2020 21.13 skrev John Alcock :
> Afternoon,
>
> I run a small ISP in Tennessee. COVID has forced a lot of people to work
> from home. I am starting to run low on IP's and need to consider CGNAT.
Afternoon,
I run a small ISP in Tennessee. COVID has forced a lot of people to work
from home. I am starting to run low on IP's and need to consider CGNAT.
I do have IPV6 space, but we all know that until we force everyone to move
to IPV6, we need to keep IPV4 up and running.
I could buy more
28 matches
Mail list logo
