3 ms·
Depends on your users; there are, for instance, plenty of phones that only natively have v6 and have to use NAT64 to reach v4 websites. So if you have such user
by yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Depends on your users; there are, for instance, plenty of phones that only natively have v6 and have to use NAT64 to reach v4 websites. So if you have such users, there might be a benefit to supporting v6 directly.
- mort96 2y agoAs you said though, those users can reach v4 websites.
- briffle 2y agoyes, with the increased latency of having to travel to the NAT64 server first. This can also cause you to not use the nearest CDN, etc.
- bigfatkitten 2y agoThe NAT64 server for those users is in the same place the CGNAT used to be.
- electronbeam 2y agoIts easier to get good latency and bandwidth over v6 than natted v4
- commandersaki 2y agoWhat is the latency or bandwidth bottleneck in nat v4?
- namibj 2y agoTaking the detour to the NAT.
- mort96 2y agoYou mean that the packets go through a router? They would do that regardless though?
- namibj 2y agoNo, I mean that the IPv4 packets go through a stateful NAT engine on the provider side, instead of going through potentially multi-path L2/L3 switching fabrics that are stateless w.r.t. the content of the packets (especially if they're actually routed L3 fabrics, not auto-discovering L2 fabrics). Thus the packets have to take a detour through the NAT engine instead of taking the shortest physical path to the destination as they can with a plain stateless L3 switched fabric. E.g. in an AON with L2/L3 switches on the provider side of the last-mile link, you can easily bend the packets right around in that switch if you're WebRTC calling your neighbor. No need to even go beyond the curbside switch. Other than that, it's still typically gonna be a physical detour to the NAT engine instead of going straight to the destination, as the NAT engine isn't fused into the main fabric data plane.
- orangeboats 2y agoYour typical router shouldn't fill up its port mapping table. In fact, the 4th layer isn't involved at all so "ports" don't even exist as a concept.
- commandersaki 2y agoSure but none of this poses a latency or bandwidth bottleneck.
- orangeboats 2y agoHow does it not?
- commandersaki 2y agoGive me some numbers then on how this materially affects latency or bandwidth.
- orangeboats 2y agoThere are already cases of Internet connectivity issues due to overloaded CGNAT. I know for a while I could only visit IPv6 websites, IPv4 technically works but the amount of packet drops meant that my IPv4 internet speed was only about 15KB/s! It's the whole reason why I discovered a DNS server that synthesizes AAAA records, for websites that actually support IPv6 through their CDN. [0] > As you said though, those users can reach v4 websites. Therefore, the question is: Can those users really reach IPv4 websites? Mind you, I don't expect the CGNAT-overloading issue to relieve over time -- unless we deploy IPv6 everywhere ;) [0]: https://gitlab.com/miyurusankalpa/IPv6-dns-server https://gitlab.com/miyurusankalpa/IPv6-dns-server