Le 3 août 2011 à 00:39, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit :

> 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.

+1

RD

> 
>> 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

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to