On 2011-08-03 09:32, Rémi Després wrote: >> I think there is an important point missing from this discussion. It is >> tricky but it has important practical consequences. >> >> As I said, "The 900G figure is valid, *as long as internal hosts reuse >> the same source address+port for different destinations*." >> >> The "as long as ..." part is important. > > Agreed. > >> I don't know of any operating >> system that behaves like that. > > The point is that this behavior concerns the NAT44 of a CE that supports > address sharing (it doesn't concern a PC OS). > By permitting _this_ NAT to do endpoint-dependent mapping for TCP > connections, the number of supported connections can be largely increased (if > found useful).
Agreed. IMHO, a NAT should be allowed to do endpoint-dependent mapping for protocols that are known not to cause issues (e.g. HTTP and DNS). I think this would address most scaling concerns people have with port ranges. This was already discussed in the behave WG by the way... 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
