6 ms·
That's a laughable low limit. Even the "pro" plan would be marginal for a single person without running into limits from time to time. And nevermind power users
by welterde 4y ago
That's a laughable low limit. Even the "pro" plan would be marginal for a single person without running into limits from time to time. And nevermind power users that might do something with p2p or have a couple more devices connected to the network.
But that's besides the point. Your home router can easily have millions of connections open (if they didn't skimp on the ram anyway), but if you have CGNAT boxes that do the same for tens of thousands of customers you also have to take into account that they have to move a lot of traffic. This means routing and doing NAT in software won't cut it anymore, but you need dedicated hardware coupled with very fast specialized memory to handle that traffic.
- londons_explore 4y agoYou can still do hardware NAT for the few thousand connections with the most packets and software NAT for everything else. I bet across even an ISP network of a million users, 80% of the traffic at any point in time is within 10,000 connections.
- stingraycharles 4y agoYou do realise that almost all connections are long-lived, and burst up and down in throughput? So the 10,000 “heaviest” connections right now are not the same as in, say, 3 seconds from now ? So you propose constantly swapping in and out connections from “hardware NAT” to “software NAT”? What heuristic will you use to decide which connections go where? Such a heuristic will probably look a lot like QoS, which is even more (much more!) resource hungry than NAT. At which point will the obvious conclusion be, “maybe the carriers who actually deal with these problems have a point, NAT is indeed a significant amount of complexity, and let’s be happy IPv6 starts to make actual economic sense?”