t
> to assess the effects of IPv4 address exhaustion.
>
> As part of our research, we conduct a survey among network operators.
> The goal of this survey is to better understand the degree of IPv4
> scarcity that ISPs face and which measures are taken to combat it (IPv4
> Carrier
this survey is to better understand the degree of IPv4
scarcity that ISPs face and which measures are taken to combat it (IPv4
Carrier-Grade NAT deployment, IPv4 address markets, and IPv6 transition
mechanisms).
If you work for an ISP that connects end-users to the Internet, we would
greatly
Slightly off-topic but what are people using as a cpe device in a
dual-stack scenario like this?
On Friday, August 1, 2014, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/14 3:45 PM, "joshua rayburn" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Starting in 3.10 code you can utilize Bulk Port Allocation to carve out
> >small consecutiv
On 7/30/14 3:45 PM, "joshua rayburn" wrote:
>
>Starting in 3.10 code you can utilize Bulk Port Allocation to carve out
>small consecutive port bundles for end users as to not mess up SIP
>functionsand High Speed Logging to log individual customers ports for law
>enforcement needs without overru
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:05:28PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:39:14 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>
> > I was talking about Amazon, not AWS. Yes, AWS would help too, but in terms
> > of
> > the Alexa list, Amazon would swing the percentage meaningfully. I dont
> >
On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <53d96dbd.3070...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> On 07/30/2014 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>> Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now
>>
>> Pun intended? :)
>
> The best thing Am
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:39:14 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> I was talking about Amazon, not AWS. Yes, AWS would help too, but in terms of
> the Alexa list, Amazon would swing the percentage meaningfully. I dont know
> to
> what extent AWS would swing the percentage.
There's probably not much stuff
On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would
>> make a significant difference.
>
> Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed
In message <53d96dbd.3070...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 07/30/2014 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> > Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now
>
> Pun intended? :)
The best thing Amazon could do would be to stop stocking IPv4 only
CPE devices.
On 07/30/2014 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now
Pun intended? :)
enforcement needs without overrunning your logging server.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Colton Conor
wrote:
> We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is
> the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate
> with DHCP and DNS solutions? H
On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would
> make a significant difference.
Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now; the
question is whether their customers tick the box appr
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
> , Gary
> Buhrmaster writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> .
>> >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would
> make a significant difference.
Per Microsoft public statements, they are now moving address space allocated
them in Brazil to the US to fill a major service shortfa
On 07/30/2014 09:16 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Corey Touchet
said:
Comcast is pushing over 1TBPS of IPv6 traffic, but I¹m sure that¹s mainly
video from Youtube and Netflix.
One thing to remember about the video services that do support IPv6 is
that a lot of end users, even if t
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Amazon apparently recently hired Yurie Rich Spence> to work on their issues.
>
And Yurie recently posted an opening for an IPv6 Engineer at same ... for
any so inclined.
/TJ
Once upon a time, Corey Touchet
said:
> Comcast is pushing over 1TBPS of IPv6 traffic, but I¹m sure that¹s mainly
> video from Youtube and Netflix.
One thing to remember about the video services that do support IPv6 is
that a lot of end users, even if they have IPv6 in the home, won't see
them o
There¹s still a lot of websites that are not with the times.
No ipv6 on CNN, FOX, or NBC news websites.
Slashdot.org shame on you!
Comcast and AT&T work, but not Verizon. No surprise there. Power company
nope.
I think CGN is fine for 99% of customers out there. Until the iPhone came
out Ve
The only actual residential data I can offer is my own. I am fully dual stack
and about 40% of my traffic is IPv6. I am a netflix subscriber, but also an
amazon prime member.
I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would
make a significant difference.
Other than
In message
, Gary
Buhrmaster writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> .
> >> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
> >> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less loggin
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
.
>> Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
>> the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you
>> need to do from day 1.
>
> That would be ni
On 29/07/14 22:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a v
On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
>>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
>>> thing, perhaps one day, but
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not
>> being supplied a globally unique address? Really?
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few wo
In message <004601cfab84$19ef4e20$4dcdea60$@wicks.co.nz>, "Tony Wicks" writes:
> >>5. NAT translation timeouts are important, XBOX and PlayStation suck.
> >
> >At least Xbox ONE prefers IPv6.
> >PS4 can, it just doesn't yet.
> >Maybe Kiwis don't play enough games for Sony to care?
>
> Few CPE rou
>>3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just
>>works.
Surprised it's that high.
So was I to be honest, but in general "It Just Works".
>>4. You need to log NAT translations for LI purposes. (IP
>>source/destination, Port source/destination, time) Surprisingly this
In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> > 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
> > thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless
> > people wh
On 7/29/2014 6:42 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
Of course, getting anything back*out* of that again in any sort of
reasonable timeframe would be... optimistic. I suppose if you're storing it
all in hadoop you can map/reduce your way out of trouble, but that's going
to mean a lot of equipment sitting
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless
> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's
> internet acces
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the
> perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has
> always had it).
>
> On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, "Tony Wicks" wrote:
>
> >OK, as someone with experie
Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the
perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has
always had it).
On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, "Tony Wicks" wrote:
>OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers
>in
>general, here are a fe
On Jul 29, 2014, at 11:54 AM,
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said:
>
>> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
>> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
>> communications had been intercepted due to the bad beh
OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers in
general, here are a few answers to common questions. This is based on the
setup I use which is CGNAT is done on the BNG (Cisco ASR1K6).
1. APNIC ran out of IPv4 a couple of years ago, so unless you want to pay
USD $10+ pe
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Chris Boyd wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a
> > list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block
> > allocation and keep track of the
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:54:57PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said:
>
> > There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
> > practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
> > communications had b
Colton Conor writes:
> I searched carrier grade NAT in google, and A10 came up a lot. I thought they
> just had good SEO going on, but it seems they have a good product as well!
> Does A10 offer DHCP, DNS, and IPAM solutions as well? You really need all 4 to
> handle carrier gra
On 7/29/14 1:00 PM, "Robert Drake" wrote:
>
>On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>
>> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
>>practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
>>communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not
>being supplied a globally unique address? Really?
Hi Owen,
I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few would
notice or care. So long as the ISP has an alternative available
>As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
>unique address? Really? I would not.
My local DSL provider does CGN. I switched to cable, but because it
was faster, not because of the addressing. They would assign you a
global static IP just by calling up and asking
On 7/29/14, 12:57 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
>unique address? Really? I would not.
Relevant: http://comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg
;-)
- Jason
Le 2014-07-29 13:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
Usually the window they give is ~ 3-5 seconds so they're pretty specific.
This assumes that your log server and theirs are synchronized to an accurate
time source within 3-5 seconds
Not really, since usually port blocks are not immediately reallocat
Not exactly what you probably want. But it´s actually working for me:
http://ipv6netro.blogspot.de/2013/10/asamap-application-capability-in-wide.html
http://enog.jp/~masakazu/vyatta/map/
Am 29.07.2014 16:45, schrieb Colton Conor:
We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Robert Drake wrote:
>
> On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>
>> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
>> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
>> communications had been intercepted due to the ba
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:10 AM,
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>
>> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
>> unique address? Really? I would not.
>
> Does the *other* provider in your area have a more liberal policy?
None of
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a globally
> unique address? Really? I would not.
Does the *other* provider in your area have a more liberal policy?
pgpFZVOkelKin.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice.
As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been
intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user.
--Chris
Usually, unless the judge is
On Jul 29, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
>> If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a
>> list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation
>> and keep track of the block
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500, Chris Boyd said:
> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
> practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
> communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user.
See the various lawsuits
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a list
> of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation and keep
> track of the blocks to reduce logging load.
There's probably going to be som
I searched carrier grade NAT in google, and A10 came up a lot. I thought
they just had good SEO going on, but it seems they have a good product as
well! Does A10 offer DHCP, DNS, and IPAM solutions as well? You really need
all 4 to handle carrier grade NAT on an access network right?
On Tue, Jul
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Colton Conor wrote:
How do you keep track of copyright violations in a CGNAT solution if
multiple customers are sharing the same public IP address?
You ask them to provide port numbers. If they can't, then you can't
identify a single subscriber.
If law enforcement comes
Colton Conor writes:
> We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is
> the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate
> with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations
> in a CGNAT solution if multip
We are looking for recommendations for a carrier grade nat solution. Who is
the leaders in this space? How do carrier grade NAT platforms integrate
with DHCP and DNS solutions? How do you keep track of copyright violations
in a CGNAT solution if multiple customers are sharing the same public IP
On 18/01/2013 17:48, "Joe Maimon" wrote:
>Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as
>they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.
Yes indeed, and the smart folks who thought (clearly didn't!) about how
the best way to manage IPV6 and IPV4 in the acces
On 17/01/2013 14:29, "Brandon Ross" wrote:
>
>AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
>you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
>
>Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
>need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess.
Indeed, the
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Kell [mailto:jeff-k...@utc.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:30 PM
[snip]
> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
> imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
> default-deny inbound here,
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
> > On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT
> for
> > more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
> > different.
> Corp
On 1/18/13, David Swafford wrote:
> There is no "suckerage" to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
> CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
Correct. CGN may be part of a transition towards IPv6.Not all
providers are necessarily going to see it that way.
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:26:53 +, Mike Jones said:
> Potentially another source of IPv4 addresses - every content network
> (/hosting provider/etc) that decides they don't want to give their
> customers IPv6 reachability is a future bankrupt ISP with a load of
> IPv4 to sell off :)
The problem
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> The killer app of the internet is called p2p.
P2p is not an app, it's a technique for implementing an app. There are
few apps which require p2p and can't be trivially redesigned not to.
If you'll pardon me saying so (and even if you
On 19 January 2013 04:48, Doug Barton wrote:
> No, because NAT-like solutions to perpetuate v4 only handle the client side
> of the transaction. At some point there will not be any more v4 address to
> assign/allocate to content provider networks. They have seen the writing on
> the wall, and many
On 01/18/2013 02:07 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
OSI and X.400 never gained much of a foothole and the millenium
generation probably never heard of them.
Is it possible that the same fate awaits IPv6 ? There is pressure to go
to IPv6, but if solutions are found for IPv4 which are simpler and
There is no "suckerage" to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
single long term solution. Imagine a day where there is no dual
stack, no IPv4, and no more band-aids. It will be amazing.
david.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:
evitable,
>> and only a test at this stage."
>>
>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/01/16/1417244/uk-isp-plusnet-testing-carrier-grade-nat-instead-of-ipv6
>>
>> I'm only here to bring you the news. So don't complain to me...
>
> It is obvious that implementin
#x27;s customers could be
> sharing one IP address, through a gateway. The move is controversial as it
> could make some Internet services fail, but PlusNet says it is inevitable,
> and only a test at this stage."
>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/01/16/1417244/uk-isp-plusnet-test
On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>> Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
>> limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
>> means the next "must have" viral appl
On 13-01-18 17:00, William Herrin wrote:
> Odds of a killer app where one router can't be replaced with a
> specialty relay while maintaining the intended function: not bloody
> likely.
Back in the late 1980s, large computer manufacturers such as Digital,
HP, IBM were pressured to adopt the futur
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
> limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
> means the next "must have" viral applications will require IPv6 and this
> may spur the move
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> Years ago, I asked, "Why are we stuck with NAT?" I still ask that. I
> believe that the reason we're stuck with it is that so many of us believe
> we're stuck with it--we're resigned to failure, so we don't do anything
> about it.
Hi Lee,
We
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
means the next "must have" viral applications will require IPv6 and this
may spur the move away from an IPv4 that has been crippled by NAT
everywhere.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
> On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
> more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
> different.
Corporate enterprises have been pushing GPO to the desktop for more
than a decade a
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:21:28 -0500, William Herrin said:
> Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
> 90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
> It's a free country so you're welcome to believe that the presence or
> absence of NAT has no impa
On 1/18/13 1:03 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote:
>
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
>> let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
>> apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
>> wel
On 1/18/13 12:48 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote:
>
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
>> Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys
>>it,
>> then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
>> by some, then others'
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 8:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>> Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
>>> 90% of the port scanning attacks which happen
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
>>90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
>>It's a free country so you're welcome to believe that th
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
well imagine that increasing to 50:1). That means that for e
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
>> Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
>> then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IP
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>>> Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even
>>> the finest of our tricksters.
>>
>> Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
>> e
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
effect. Als
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
>> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
>> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
>> clients or the gen
On 1/18/13 9:03 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
>> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
>> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
>> clients or the general-purpose non-server non-
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
somebody smart can fig
Owen DeLong wrote:
Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even the
finest of our tricksters.
Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
extensions to code to work around yet more NAT and maybe make it sort of kind
of work almost a
(resending with nanog-approved address..)
On 18. jan. 2013 01:30, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything
On 18-1-2013 15:03, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
> On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
> more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
> different.
Well yeah, but everything is
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
> clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application
> developers.
Correct. The most sign
>
> I hate to break it to you guys more of the larger providers in NA are
> implementing CGNAT in the next 6 to 18 months. Especially the mobile carriers.
I have agreed long ago that mobile is the one place where CGN will go mostly
unnoticed. First of all, most mobiles have been behind some f
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> And this is where you run off the rails… You are assuming that NAT today
>> and CGN provide similar functionality from an end-user perspective.
>
> To the extent that CGN functions like the cluel
Owen DeLong wrote:
And this is where you run off the rails… You are assuming that NAT today
and CGN provide similar functionality from an end-user perspective.
To the extent that CGN functions like the clueless linksys daisy-chain,
then yes it does.
The reality is that they do not. CGN is
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
I'm currently using NAT44, with at least two layers of 802.11g
WiFi and 5 routers that seem to be doing independent NAT. Two of them
are mine, then the other 3 are of the ISP, to whom I connect through
802.11g, and it generally works just f
On 17 January 2013 17:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
>>> and many of the other IM clients.
>>
>> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox,
On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
>> and many of the other IM clients.
>
> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
> imaginable (other t
I'll agree there, as developers have built in some tricks to work around NAT
issues. But in reality doing away with NAT is a much better alternative for
the long haul. So you are both right, but I'll side with Owen when doing
network deployments as to ease my future headaches.
Sent from my iP
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
> and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
default
>
> Nevertheless, I'll be happy to document my assumptions and show you
> where they lead.
>
> I assume that fewer than 1 in 10 eyeballs would find Internet service
> behind a NAT unsatisfactory. Eyeballs are the consumers of content,
> the modem, cable modem, residential DSL customers.
And this
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
>>> The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
>>> somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
>>> i
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
>> The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
>> somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
>> is frustrating and unfun.
>
>"Free network-based firewall
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
> The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
> somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
> is frustrating and unfun.
"Free network-based firewall to be installed next month. OPT OUT HERE
if you don't
On 17 January 2013 15:29, Brandon Ross wrote:
..
> AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
> you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
>
> Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
> need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess.
Ok. I w
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
