[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CGNAT Solutions



Ca By wrote:

>>>    You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internal port
>>> range it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses.  If you
>>> can do that, you can get rid of the programmatic state tracking entirely
>>> and just use static translations for TCP and UDP which, while nice, is
>>> impractical.  You're about 95% of the way to LW4o6 or MAP at that point.
>>
>> Interesting. Then, if you can LW4o6 or MAP, you are about 95% of the
>> way to E2ENAT with complete end to end transparency using IPv4 only,
>> which means we don't need IPv6 with 4to6 NAT lacking the transparency.
>>
>>          https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
>>
>>                                                  Masataka Ohta

> Since we are talking numbers ans hard facts

I'm rather interested in not numbers but facts on the E2E
transparency, because, without the transparency, legacy
NAT44 should be enough.

But, as you insist on numbers:

> 42% of usa accesses google on ipv6
> 
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

The proper number to be considered should be percentage of IPv6
hosts which can not communicate with IPv4 only hosts.

Isn't it 0%?

							Masataka Ohta