mailing list archives
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: Rob Seastrom <rs () seastrom com>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:39:16 -0400
Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com> writes:
On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote:
On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
You mean like a few linux servers running iptables nat-masquerade?
You think the "Carrier Grade" in "Carrier Grade NAT" isn't just a
rhetorically constructed distraction, from the fact that simple NAT
may be implemented, and yeah, end users are certain to experience
annoyances, either way...
Forget about the "annoying users" part; the "carrier-grade" part of
CGN is all about not annoying the service provider. As far as I'm
aware, iptables does not include deterministic port translation based
on source address, nor easy-to-configure hooks for CALEA [*]. It may
well turn out that once one factors in support your costs are higher
with large scale NAT-on-Linux than if you'd sucked it up and coughed
up a quarter mil for an appliance.
[*] I'd love to hear that I'm wrong on this count, but a how-to
document that explains how one can lovingly handcraft such a thing as
opposed to a special refactored distro that's ready to plug-and-chug
appliance style will only serve to reinforce my assertion.
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Rajiv Asati (rajiva) (Apr 08)
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Matthew Kaufman (Apr 07)
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Jay Ashworth (Apr 07)
RE: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Staudinger, Malcolm (Apr 08)
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN kpospisek (Apr 09)