Lee Howard wrote:
So, all we need is NAT44 CPE, which only uses a reserved block of ports,
which is (semi) statically configured by ISP operated gateway.
How would you route from the provider edge?
If CPE A has 192.0.2.15 port 1000-2999
and CPE B has 192.0.2.15 port 3000-4999,
Oops,I conce
Hi Lee,
> Also but, would that be a Net Neutrality problem, charging less for a service
> that has arguably worse access to Amazon, Reddit, Twitter, etc.?
Net neutrality as it is here in Europe usually is satisfied when no
preferential treatment is given to a limited set of services (Netflix ha
On 8/9/19 1:32 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 8 août 2019 16:18 -04, Lee Howard :
NAT64. IPv6-only to users. DNS resolver given in provisioning
information is a DNS64 server. When it does a lookup but there's no
, it invents one based on the A record (e.g., 2001:db8:64::). The IPv6 prefix
NANOG On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 5:18 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: MAP-E
>
>
> On 8/2/19 11:39 AM, Jay Hanke wrote:
> > Is there a summary presentation someplace laying out the options that
> > are active in the wild with som
On 8/8/19 9:00 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
MAP-T, MAP-E. IPv6-only between CE and Border Relay (BR). CPE is
provisioned with an IPv4 address and a range of ports. It does basic
NAT44, but only uses the reserved ports. Then it translates to IPv6
(MAP-T) or encapsulates in
On 8/8/19 9:00 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As for protocol, assuming port mapping on UPnP gateway is statically
configured by ISPs not changable from CPE side, GetListOfPortMappings()
of UPnP should be useful for CPEs to know range of ports to be used
by them.
There's actually a DHCPv6 option for
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Jay Hanke wrote:
Actually your post is better than a presentation. I was quite surprised
at the adoption rate of DS-Lite. There must be some pretty decent B4
implementations with that many operators deployed.
The DOCSIS residential gateway vendors seem to have converged on
❦ 8 août 2019 16:18 -04, Lee Howard :
> NAT64. IPv6-only to users. DNS resolver given in provisioning
> information is a DNS64 server. When it does a lookup but there's no
> , it invents one based on the A record (e.g., 2001:db8:64:: address>). The IPv6 prefix in the invented is actuall
Lee Howard wrote:
MAP-T, MAP-E. IPv6-only between CE and Border Relay (BR). CPE is
provisioned with an IPv4 address and a range of ports. It does basic
NAT44, but only uses the reserved ports. Then it translates to IPv6
(MAP-T) or encapsulates in IPv6 (MAP-E) and forwards to the configured
of maximizing the “use” of the existing
> IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 17:25, "
t the adoption rate of DS-Lite. There must be some pretty
decent B4 implementations with that many operators deployed.
Even though the spreadsheet is small sample size, there isn't much
DS-lite deployment in the US.
So from 10k feet, MAP-E is basically the same thing as
ed at scale on
mobile networks. Con: Very little CPE support in home routers.
MAP-T, MAP-E. IPv6-only between CE and Border Relay (BR). CPE is
provisioned with an IPv4 address and a range of ports. It does basic
NAT44, but only uses the reserved ports. Then it translates to IP
s://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" escribió:
Hi Jordi
My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid
the expense and oper
sentation. I was quite
surprised at the adoption rate of DS-Lite. There must be some pretty
decent B4 implementations with that many operators deployed.
Even though the spreadsheet is small sample size, there isn't much
DS-lite deployment in the US.
So from 10k feet, MAP-E is basically the same
the prem, breaks DNSSEC.
464xlat. IPv6-only between CE and NAT64. Any IPv4 traffic the CPE
receives, it translates to IPv6 and forwards to a destination that's the
NAT64 server, which translates again. Pro: widely deployed at scale on
mobile networks. Con: Very little CPE support in home router
ordi
@jordipalet
El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl"
mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en
nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com
<mailto:baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>> escribió:
Hi Jordi
My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual st
>> forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E
>> appears to be the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a
>> packet and route it as normal. No need to invest in anything as our
>> core routers can already do that. No worries
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 9:05 am, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/Aug/19 14:17, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are
>> forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP
On 2/Aug/19 14:17, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
> The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are
> forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E
> appears to be the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a
> packet and
round what technology people may choose to
go with, and instead what CPEs may be suitable...
I know this is 464XLAT rather than MAP-E that was originally requested, but
recent versions of D-Link firmware, eg for the DVA-2800, include the CLAT
functionality. My testing in November last year show
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
-> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you
need to do the same,
With static port range assignment, we don't have to.
So you're going to say what ports the users are forced to use...
Like DHCP, yes. So?
Only users know what applications t
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 06:42:30 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> > A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be used
> > for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.
>
> > -> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444
Moving away from the discussion around what technology people may choose to go
with, and instead what CPEs may be suitable...
I know this is 464XLAT rather than MAP-E that was originally requested, but
recent versions of D-Link firmware, eg for the DVA-2800, include the CLAT
functionality. My
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Or the case of Playstation network. Yes they WILL blacklist your CGN
just the same as they can blacklist a shared MAP ip address. Except it
affects more users.
If IP address sharing by blocks of ports becomes common and there is
typical block size (say, 1024), blacklisti
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> > which again is not the case for 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets
> > automatically as many ports as he needs at every moment.
>
> Unless all the ports are used up.
>
> -> That's right, but you n
s illegal, because
providing a reduced number of ports IS NOT (technically) Internet
connectivity, is a reduced functionality of Internet connectivity,
As Baldur Norddahl wrote:
All MAP-E does is reserving a port range for each customer. So
customer A might be assigned port range 2000-2999, customer
> The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as
> SonyPlaystation Network will put those addresses in the black list,
> so you need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for
> 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the addresses dynamically.
A pr
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64.
Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of
burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
Are you saying ICMP and DNS nasty?
As DNS protocol is still actively
ds,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" escribió:
Hi Jordi
My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid
the expense and operative nightmare of having to run a redundant NAT server
setup with thousands of us
; Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" <
> nanog-boun...@nanog.org en nombre de baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi
>
>
>
> My alternative to MAP-E is pl
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:33 PM Bryan Holloway wrote:
>
>
> On 8/2/19 5:16 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> >
> > Multiple customers share an IPv4 address each with an assigned port
> range.
> >
>
>
> One downside that has been brought up on the list before is that a DDoS
> attack against a single sub
parison/
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl"
> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi
>
>
>
> My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual sta
On 8/2/19 5:16 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Multiple customers share an IPv4 address each with an assigned port range.
One downside that has been brought up on the list before is that a DDoS
attack against a single subscriber will impact many, but that particular
drawback may not outweigh
://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison/
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2/8/19 17:25, "NANOG en nombre de Baldur Norddahl" escribió:
Hi Jordi
My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to avoid
the expense and operative nightmare
Hi Jordi
My alternative to MAP-E is plain old NAT 444 dual stack. I am trying to
avoid the expense and operative nightmare of having to run a redundant NAT
server setup with thousands of users. MAP is the only alternative that
avoids a provider run NAT server.
Regards,
Baldur
On Fri, Aug 2
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:49 PM Brian J. Murrell
wrote:
>
> Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of
> burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
>
>
All MAP-E does is reserving a port range for each customer. So customer A
mi
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 14:49, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of
> burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
>
I'm a fan of these solutions that (only) use NAT44 in the CPE as this is
exactl
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of
burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
LW4o6 is regular NAT44 and then tunnel encap. MAP-E is similar.
So if there is NAT44 helper for these protocols
gt; You can also use OpenSource (Jool) for the NAT64.
Will any of these (including MAP-E) support such nasty (in terms of
burying IP addresses in data payloads) protocols as FTP and SIP/SDP?
Cheers,
b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
aldur Norddahl" escribió:
Hello
Are there any known public deployments of MAP-E? What about CPE routers with
support?
The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are forced to
go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E appears to be the
most ele
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
be a demand. Alternatively I need to find a different CPE vendor that
has MAP-E support, but are there any?
Broadcom supports MAP-E and LW4o6 encap/decap in fastpath on at least
BCM63138 with their latest BSP versions.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
Hello
Are there any known public deployments of MAP-E? What about CPE routers
with support?
The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are forced
to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E appears to be
the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers
42 matches
Mail list logo
