4 ms·

As the article says, the Roku traffic is the overwhelming majority of that ipv4 traffic. HN and similar mostly-text websites would barely show up on the statis

As the article says, the Roku traffic is the overwhelming majority of that ipv4 traffic. HN and similar mostly-text websites would barely show up on the statistics.

zamadatix 4y ago
NAT scales in both dimensions, you're just as likely to need a larger box for a larger connection table as you are a larger bandwidth.
- noAnswer 4y ago
  At some point you also need more IPv4-addresses. There are only 65535 ports to be mapped.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    At some point but remember it's not "after 65535 connections per IP" it's "after 65535 connections of the same type to the same IP per IP". That is to saythese NATs where 156.78.92.154 is a single public address on the NATing box: 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.8.8:53 UDP 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.8.8:53 TCP 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.4.4:53 TCP 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.4.4:53 UDP Can all exist simultaneously even though only 1 port is in use and we haven't even started changing the destination IP or ports yet (e.g. 80 and 443 as the destination won't double count and thousands of web servers on different addresses can be accessed via the same source port). With CG-NAT you can usually support somewhere around 30k customers on the free /24 you get from ARIN for having only IPv6 and needing space to translate in (for new orgs like new ISPs this is assigned immediately out of a reserved block, bypassing the waitlist for existing orgs trying to get free reclaimed space).
- ArchOversight 4y ago
  It's also about ports. If I have 10 Gbps of IPv4 flow but my devices are licensed for and operate on 1 Gbps, I need to license 10 1 Gbps ports. When I was last working at an ISP, various CG-NAT solutions charged not just based on the connection table, but also there was various licensing for various slide-in cards. If the ISP is having to buy additional hardware/additional ports on upstream providers just to power their CG-NAT that is an additional cost. If the POP where you have your CG-NAT doesn't have more bandwidth available you end up running your ports hot... so now you either need to rent a new location, get your connectivity up there and start figuring out how to route the traffic. It's not as simple, and it all costs copious amounts of money. Especially if your IPv6 can more easily be distributed across multiple POP's with multiple forms of connectivity and traffic shaped using BGP or other solutions thereby reducing the load on a single upstream port.

As the article says, the Roku traffic is the overwhelming majority of that ipv4 traffic. HN and similar mostly-text websites would barely show up on the statistics.

zamadatix 4y ago

NAT scales in both dimensions, you're just as likely to need a larger box for a larger connection table as you are a larger bandwidth.

noAnswer 4y ago
At some point you also need more IPv4-addresses. There are only 65535 ports to be mapped.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  At some point but remember it's not "after 65535 connections per IP" it's "after 65535 connections of the same type to the same IP per IP". That is to saythese NATs where 156.78.92.154 is a single public address on the NATing box: 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.8.8:53 UDP 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.8.8:53 TCP 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.4.4:53 TCP 156.78.92.154:6781<->8.8.4.4:53 UDP Can all exist simultaneously even though only 1 port is in use and we haven't even started changing the destination IP or ports yet (e.g. 80 and 443 as the destination won't double count and thousands of web servers on different addresses can be accessed via the same source port). With CG-NAT you can usually support somewhere around 30k customers on the free /24 you get from ARIN for having only IPv6 and needing space to translate in (for new orgs like new ISPs this is assigned immediately out of a reserved block, bypassing the waitlist for existing orgs trying to get free reclaimed space).
ArchOversight 4y ago
It's also about ports. If I have 10 Gbps of IPv4 flow but my devices are licensed for and operate on 1 Gbps, I need to license 10 1 Gbps ports. When I was last working at an ISP, various CG-NAT solutions charged not just based on the connection table, but also there was various licensing for various slide-in cards. If the ISP is having to buy additional hardware/additional ports on upstream providers just to power their CG-NAT that is an additional cost. If the POP where you have your CG-NAT doesn't have more bandwidth available you end up running your ports hot... so now you either need to rent a new location, get your connectivity up there and start figuring out how to route the traffic. It's not as simple, and it all costs copious amounts of money. Especially if your IPv6 can more easily be distributed across multiple POP's with multiple forms of connectivity and traffic shaped using BGP or other solutions thereby reducing the load on a single upstream port.