MAP solves that by splitting NAT into a part that can be done without state (route a port range to a customer) and the actual NAT which is then done on the CPE.
It is also the only NAT solution that scales. Regards, Baldur On 5 July 2015 at 21:09, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > A NAT box is a central point of failure for which the only cure is to not > do NAT. > > You can get clustered NAT boxes (Juniper, for example), but that just > makes a bigger central point of failure. > > Owen > > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:49 , Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: > > > > The point I am concerned about is a central point of failure. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joshua Moore > > Network Engineer > > ATC Broadband > > 912.632.3161 > > > >> On Jul 5, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> > >> Not necessarily. But what I am telling you is that whatever goes out > NAT gateway A has to come back in through NAT gateway A. > >> > >> You can build whatever topology you want on either side of that and > nothing says B has to be any where near A. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:25 , Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> So basically what you are telling me is that the NAT gateway needs to > be centrally aggregated. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Joshua Moore > >>> Network Engineer > >>> ATC Broadband > >>> 912.632.3161 > >>> > >>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> If you want to keep that, then you’ll need a public backbone network > that joins all of your NATs and you’ll need to have your NATs use unique > exterior address pools. > >>>> > >>>> Load balancing a single session across multiple NATs isn’t really > possible. > >>>> > >>>> Owne > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 08:11 , Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Performing the NAT on the border routers is not a problem. The > problem comes into play where the connectivity is not symmetric. Multiple > entry/exit points to the Internet and some are load balanced. We'd like to > keep that architecture too as it allows for very good protection in an > internet link failure scenario and provides BGP best path connectivity. > >>>>> > >>>>> So traffic cones in ISP A might leave ISP B or traffic coming in ISP > A may come in ISP B simultaneously. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Joshua Moore > >>>>> Network Engineer > >>>>> ATC Broadband > >>>>> 912.632.3161 > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WISPs have been good at solving this, as they are often deploying > greenfield networks. They use private IPv4 internally and NAT IPv4 at > multiple exit points. IPv6 is seamlessly redundant, since customers all > receive global /64s; BGP handles failover. If you home multiple upstream > providers on a single NAT gateway hardware stack, redundancy is also > seamless, since your NAT tables are synced across redundant stack members. > If you have separate stacks, or even sites, IPv4 can fail over to an > alternate NAT Border gateway but will lose session contexts, unless you go > to the trouble of syncing the gateways. Most WISPs don't. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -mel beckman > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So the question is: where do you perform the NAT and how can it be > redundant? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joshua Moore > >>>>>>> Network Engineer > >>>>>>> ATC Broadband > >>>>>>> 912.632.3161 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Josh, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your job is simple, then. Deliver dual-stack to your customers > and if they want IPv6 they need only get an IPv6-enabled firewall. Unless > you're also an IT consultant to your customers, your job is done. If you > already supply the CPE firewall, then you need only turn on IPv6 for > customers who request it. With the right kind of CPE, you can run MPLS or > EoIP and deliver public IPv4 /32s to customers willing to pay for them. > Otherwise it's private IPv4 and NAT as usual for IPv4 traffic. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -mel via cell > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:57 AM, Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We are the ISP and I have a /32 :) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm simply looking at the best strategy for migrating my > subscribers off v4 from the perspective of solving the address utilization > crisis while still providing compatibility for those one-off sites and > services that are still on v4. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joshua Moore > >>>>>>>>> Network Engineer > >>>>>>>>> ATC Broadband > >>>>>>>>> 912.632.3161 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Josh Moore wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Tunnels behind a CPE and 4to6 NAT seem like bandaid fixes as > they do not give the benefit of true end to end IPv6 connectivity in the > sense of every device has a one to one global address mapping. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, tunnels do give you one to one global IPv6 address mapping > for every device. From a testing perspective, a tunnelbroker works just as > if you had a second IPv6-only ISP. If you're fortunate enough to have a > dual-stack ISP already, you can forgo tunneling altogether and just use an > IPv6-capable border firewall. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> William Waites wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I was helping my > >>>>>>>>>>> friend who likes Apple things connect to the local community > >>>>>>>>>>> network. He wanted to use an Airport as his home gateway > rather than > >>>>>>>>>>> the router that we normally use. Turns out these things can > *only* do > >>>>>>>>>>> IPv6 with tunnels and cannot do IPv6 on PPPoE. Go figure. So > there is > >>>>>>>>>>> not exactly a clear path to native IPv6 for your lab this way. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Nobody is recommending the Apple router as a border firewall. > It's terrible for that. But it's a ready-to-go tunnelbroker gateway. If > your ISP can't deliver IPv6, tunneling is the clear path to building a lab. > If you have a dual-stack ISP already, the clear path is to use an > IPv6-capable border firewall. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So you are in a maze of non-twisty paths, all alike :) > >>>> > >> > >
