3 ms·
You actually don't need state to share an IPv4 address, if you statically allocate port ranges to customers, and route packets based on the address+port. But r
by p1mrx 12y ago
You actually don't need state to share an IPv4 address, if you statically allocate port ranges to customers, and route packets based on the address+port.
But rather than build special routers that understand port ranges, it makes more sense to map each address+port into an IPv6 prefix, and use standard IPv6 routing. That's the basis of MAP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Address_and_Port http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Address_and_Port
Of course, the scheme is useless if you don't have an IPv6 network in the first place.
- ay 12y agoOh, indeed! The basic argument is "keeping state is more expensive and fragile than not keeping it". BTW, speaking of MAP: the CPE-side code is now in OpenWRT trunk. I have built a few images here, in case someone is interested to test: http://stdio.be/blog/2014-06-10-OpenWRT-MAP-images-from-pure-trunk/ http://stdio.be/blog/2014-06-10-OpenWRT-MAP-images-from-pure... (Needless to say, would love to hear feedback)