[c-nsp] ASA vs. ASR for large Wireless NAT deployment ?

[Mark Tinka]

On Saturday, November 12, 2011 06:48:35 AM Johnson, Neil M 
wrote:

> One requirement is that the NAT device not mangle IPv6
> and only NAT IPv4 traffic destined to the Internet (we
> route some private address space internally).
> 
> Any recommendations ?

We've deployed some ASR1006's for NAT44 and NAT64.

The NAT44 is for our IPTv VoD service (Unicast), while the 
NAT64 is for IPv6-only customers trying to reach IPv4-only 
resources.

We have the same chassis playing both roles.

I don't know about the ASA, but the ASR1000 does support 
Stateful Inter-Chassis NAT Redundancy, but only for NAT44 at 
this time. Not sure when NAT64 will be coming, but I'm sure 
it will. Also, I think the ESP20 should be good for about 
2,000,000 NAT translations last time I checked.

Of course, the ASR1006 makes lots of sense for us because 
it's also a router, so we can still IP/MPLS stuff on there 
without any restrictions.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20111113/1f05005c/attachment.pgp>