4 ms·
Here's an easy one for you: if you have a gigabit connection, most home routers can barely handle the load of NAT. That's why gamers push for IPv6. It's mention
by mgbmtl 4y ago
Here's an easy one for you: if you have a gigabit connection, most home routers can barely handle the load of NAT. That's why gamers push for IPv6. It's mentioned in the article but few people realize how inefficient NAT can be at gigabit and more.
My ISP router could do max 800 mbps, which isn't so bad, but it degraded when we were multiple people using the link. With IPv6 it's much less of a problem, we can easily saturate the 1gbps without the router having a meltdown.
- TekMol 4y agoI don't even know what type of connection I have. I only know the speed is way more than I need. fast.com says 50 "Mbps". Whatever that is.
- lxgr 4y ago> if you have a gigabit connection, most home routers can barely handle the load of NAT. I remember reading about this as well. Wouldn't that also apply to stateful firewalling, though? Or is NAT inherently more computationally difficult (e.g. due to having to recompute IP and/or TCP/UDP checksums) than checking a state table?
- layer8 4y ago> if you have a gigabit connection Yeah, not anywhere close. In ten years I’ll have one maybe.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago> if you have a gigabit connection Rare in the US. Hell, we don't even have a 1Gb connection at work.
- krab 4y agoThe consumer links are usually oversubscribed. In Prague, you can easily get 1Gbps if you're near fibre. However, office-quality link will cost you 10x more for the same nominal speed.
- favaq 4y ago>Here's an easy one for you: if you have a gigabit connection, most home routers can barely handle the load of NAT. [citation needed] >That's why gamers push for IPv6. [citation needed]
- jonathantf2 4y agoI have a symmetrical gig connection, ISP doesn't provide IPv6. Can route full line speed using their router, no matter if it's 1 device or 50 connected. I don't know of a single game that supports IPv6, although some consoles might?
- mgbmtl 4y agoYep, Xbox supports IPv6. Maybe it's a ricer thing, but I definitely see a difference and I compared my ISP's router (which didn't display CPU load), an openwrt router without hw flow offloading support (horrible), and an UDM SE. (I don't have an Xbox, I just see posts on my local ISP's forum)
- wankle 4y ago> if you have a gigabit connection, most home routers can barely handle the load of NAT We are on AT&T Fiber, the router has no issues. I've never seen a router have issues with any speed for that matter, where NAT is concerned. > That's why gamers push for IPv6. I'm a gamer, I know a lot of gamers, no one is pushing for IPv6 that I'm aware of.
- commandersaki 4y agoHaha bollocks. NAT adds probably at most 1 microsecond to the processing of packets. It’s state for a flow is roughly 16 bytes. The nonsense about NAT being inefficient or slow astounds me.
- mac-chaffee 4y ago> The results show that rewriting the packets is quite a bit more expensive than just allowing or dropping a packet. For example, if we look at the unidirectional test with 10,000 flows, we see that we dropped from 14M pps [packets per second] to 3.2M pps, we also needed 13 cores more to do this! https://atoonk.medium.com/linux-kernel-and-measuring-network-throughput-547c3b68c4d2 https://atoonk.medium.com/linux-kernel-and-measuring-network... Just speculating, but I believe the cost comes from all the memory operations of reading/editing/writing every packet, not from the NAT table lookup.