Re: Use of NPTv6 in a mobile service provider network

:15 PM Amos Rosenboim via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: Roland, Thanks for your comments. As much as I love to be a network purist who hates state maintenance in the core of the network, the sad reality is that these devices are there and will remain there for the foreseeable

Re: Use of NPTv6 in a mobile service provider network

get some deployment feedback on NPTv6 in service provider networks. Any such feedback is appreciated. Cheers, Amos Sent from my iPhone On 3 Feb 2025, at 14:41, Dobbins, Roland wrote:  External sender - pay attention On Feb 3, 2025, at 17:03, Amos Rosenboim via NANOG wrote: The requirement

Re: Use of NPTv6 in a mobile service provider network

Thank you Joshua for the quick and detailed response. I agree with everything you mentioned below, and this is why we are considering it. To your questions and comments below: The requirement for state full traffic flow is given by the customer. The logic behind it is to avoid unnecessary pagi

Use of NPTv6 in a mobile service provider network

Hi, We are implementing an CGNAT + IPv6 firewall project for a mobile service provider. One of the project goals is to support scale out all active deployment of the stateful devices. One of the challenges of inserting these stateful devices into the network is the requirement that all packet