On Aug 4, 2011 5:26 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
It is still very usefull and will be deployed regardless. I understand you need to keep your documents consistent, but stretching those ipv4 addresses further is a network and business reality of today's big nat and future big nat. Cb > > 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
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
