Hi, Christopher:
Thanks for the confirmation.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 11:42)
On 2024-01-12 07:30, Christopher Hawker wrote:
"Source NAT changes the source address in IP header of a packet. It
may also change the source port in the TCP/UDP headers. The typical
usage is to change the a priv
"Source NAT changes the source address in IP header of a packet. It may
also change the source port in the TCP/UDP headers. The typical usage is to
change the a private (rfc1918) address/port into a public address/port for
packets leaving your network."
"Destination NAT changes the destination add
Hi, Christopher:
1) " destination/source NAT ":
I am not sure about this terminology. Could you please elaborate?
If you are referring EzIP being a bigger CG-NAT, it is exactly correct.
That is, the first step of EzIP implementation is just to give CG-NAT a
larger netblock to work with,
The problem isn't the quantity of "inside" CG-NAT address space. It's the
existence of CG-NAT at all.
It doesn't matter if the available space is a /12 or a /4, you still need
something to translate it to the public internet. The existence of that
CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's side
Not going to lie, EzIP just seems to be some version of destination/source
NAT on steroids.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 14:36, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Hi, Forrest:
>
> 0)Thanks for your in-depth analysis.
>
> 1) However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP c
Hi, Forrest:
0) Thanks for your in-depth analysis.
1) However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP concept
clearer. That is, one way to look at the EzIP scheme is to substitute
the current 100.64/10 netblock in the CG-NAT with 240/4. Everything
else in the current CG-NAT setup st
I shouldn't probably go down this path... as I know this has been discussed
but I'm hoping that this might make a difference.
Abraham,
Even if 240/4 is "fixed", your EzIP scheme will require some sort of NAT
box between the 240/4 addressed devices and the non-EzIP internet. That
NAT box will hav
Hi, Enno:
0) Thanks for your comments referring to historical efforts.
1) However, the "IPv4 Unicast Extension Project" that your paper
cited does not make any specific recommendation about how to utilize the
240/4 netblock uniformly across the entire Internet. Our proposal, EzIP
outlin
8 matches
Mail list logo
