Satoru-san,  

This is an important point that most of us forget that restricting to
"n" ports doesn't equate to just "n" NAT sessions rather many more than
n sessions. We must add that to the 4v6 motivation draft as well as to
the 4v6 comparison draft.

> port. There may be multiple session to different destinations using
the same
> external port. The 900G figure is valid, as long as internal hosts
reuse the
> same source address+port for different destinations.

Cheers,
Rajiv


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf
> Of Simon Perreault
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:55 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful
discussion
> 
> Simon Perreault wrote, on 08/02/2011 09:24 AM:
> > Satoru Matsushima wrote, on 08/01/2011 10:41 PM:
> >> Thanks, a clarification has made to clear a confusion of restricted
port
> >> set/ranges and NAT session table limitation. Even if a CPE is
allocated 256
> >> ports, NAT session can be made over 900G sessions in theory.
('2^32'<Full
> >> 32bits v4 address> - '2^29'<class-D/E> - '2^7'<0/8,127/8>) *
2^8<256
> ports>.
> >
> > This is only true for endpoint-dependent NATs, which are forbidden
by the
> BEHAVE
> > RFCs (4787 and 5382). According to these RFCs, NATs MUST have
> > endpoint-independent mapping behaviour. This means that each NAT
session
> will
> > consume one external port.
> 
> Sorry, I confused the terminology. Each NAT *binding* will consume one
> external
> port. There may be multiple session to different destinations using
the same
> external port. The 900G figure is valid, as long as internal hosts
reuse the
> same source address+port for different destinations.
> 
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to