On 2011-08-03 16:44, Tetsuya Murakami wrote: >> So the 900G figure is valid *in theory*, but *in practice* we're >> stuck with a number of sessions roughly equal to the number of >> external ports available on the NAT. > > As I mentioned above, the number of NAT session can be greater than > the available port number in practice because the NAT function in > these operating systems has already supported to reuse a port number > which is used for another NAT session with the different destination.
Yes, because these NATs are endpoint-dependent, which is forbidden by the BEHAVE RFCs. > So, the 900G figure is valid today. In practice, there are another > limitation from the memory size for keeping all NAT session and so > the NAT function has a limitation of maximum number of NAT session. > But this is totally regardless of the port-range functionality. Agreed. 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
