IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Google Alert - IPv6

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sun, 29 October 2017 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF2813F4D1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 02:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLGus4_3vhRL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 02:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [195.30.115.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B05DD13FA77 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 02:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B1741BF1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:44:42 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F35B411A0; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:44:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 6046412DF9; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:44:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:44:42 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com>
Message-ID: <20171029094442.GO45648@Space.Net>
References: <20395E98-DA55-447F-BEFE-CB581A88BB78@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710190655260.31961@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20171019083506.6627a166@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710190856530.31961@uplift.swm.pp.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A056EB5@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAHw9_iLWAMexrfXwsdB8duGa5ueJMofqVRqNck6DeOzA=KChqA@mail.gmail.com> <C4E37677-A2FB-49F8-B362-C29B28DFD570@daveor.com> <D618D79F.8AA1A%lee@asgard.org> <22C655A9-AE02-4885-98B5-7515C49E7F2B@employees.org> <B20ECDCB-1EFD-4265-BE13-5AE1E92335AE@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T8v9l1CzjENu+adM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B20ECDCB-1EFD-4265-BE13-5AE1E92335AE@gmail.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dYpt4lwWAUh-41slHzQ1C7PvWeE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Google Alert - IPv6
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:44:47 -0000

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 06:54:39AM +0400, Fred Baker wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> > 
> > The bitter truth is that we can make IPv4 'scale' forever. ;-(
> 
> Actually, from what I have been told, we can't. We can make it
> work for a number of sources per translated address (Xing Li gave
> a talk on his experiments in that regard a few years back, although
> I would have to do some research to find it). As I recall, he started
> getting user complaints when he had 100-or-so active sessions on
> each external address. That's far from "forever".

That would more hint at a poor implementation of the CGN than a 
theoretical limit.  What Ole says - no need to use a new source port
per TCP session, as long as the destination address is new.  But most
NAT implementations don't seem to do that.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email