[c-nsp] Carrier grade NAT44 & newest Cisco boxes

[Ruslan Pustovoytov]

Recently I got from cisco presentation about ISM.
Bulk port allocation was planned for the release 4.2.1.
But I am not sure if regulator can send port number with IP address.
Without port number bulk port allocation will be useless feature.


Ruslan Pustovoitov пишет:
> I know Alcatel has Bulk Port Allocation in it's MS-ISA and it work fine.
> ISM-100/CGSE has no such feature but my aim is argue that ISM is the 
> right answer )
>
> Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com пишет:
>>> We in europe have some pressure to have the ability to map the     
>> ip/port/timestamp  
>>> touple back to user. Of course nobody will be able to deliver the 
>>> port     
>> together  
>>> with the ip and an accurate enough timestamp for this to be 
>>> meaningfull.
>>>     
>>
>> Bulk Port Allocation (also called Port Range Allocation) is probably 
>> what you're looking for. It reduces logging requirements by several 
>> orders of magnitudes and your timestamping doesn't have to be as 
>> precise. This is a must to deploy any CGN, IMHO.
>> Coming soon to your favorite Cisco CGN implementation, apparently...
>>  
>>> I can see this becoming a larger problem when more nats appear on     
>> conventional  
>>> DSL / FTTx / Cable access products as opposed to just low bandwidth     
>> mobile networks.
>>
>> Mobile networks aren't that low bandwidth anymore. They have the same 
>> issues with logging.
>> /JF
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/