Wow, missed out on this for awhile. Too much family stuff going on.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:21:54PM -0500, Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
> How many users can be served by a single NAT device? There are enough
> port bits for some thousands, I'd suppose, but does that work in
> practice?
Quite alot in practice, as most enterprise/carrier level firewalls let
you use a dynamic pool for NAT'ing behind. So in addition to reusing
the 16-bits of ports (although they'd stay away from at least a 10th
of the # of ports), they can also use any IP out of the dynamic pool
as well.
But still, many things break in NAT still without special provisions
(ie. SIP, H.323, etc. etc) that they aren't going to allow in a
carrier-wide NAT setup.
> And to ask the question from the opposite direction, how many
> public-facing IPs will the next Google or Facebook need?
Probably not too many. Even if they needed many diverse geographic
locations, they could still anycast their networks around.
>> I'm currently getting TWTC to do it, but it was a special case and
>> process going on 4 months so far. Then we can switch out of the
>> tunnel to the EastCoast that we have currently.
>
> Is that for testing or does any customer data go over it (if you're
> willing to answer)?
We have customer data running over the IPv6 infrastructure we have
now, yes. As I mentioned, its tunneled out to the East coast before,
but now with TWTC, I'm just waiting for them to turn up my BGP session
to go native up out of Minneapolis with it. We'll have to see what
kind of routing is like, or if we only have people on the coasts to
talk to anyway.
Colo and the like is pretty straight forward for IPv6 setup. DSL, not so much.
> (Has anyone else been following http://www.wiredreread.com/ ? I'm not
> sure I like the memories it brings back, but it sure brings them back.)
Heh, thats great.
--
Doug McIntyre <[log in to unmask]>
-- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS --
Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
