22 Apr
2018
22 Apr
'18
3:43 p.m.
Wasn't the idea to 44.190.0.0/16 subnets available
via BGP? If so, why
would there be NAT?
Of course for directly connected networks there will be no NAT, but there are those
networks
that are connected to internet via consumer internet connections (and no IPIP tunneling)
and the traffic from those networks to the 44.190 space will pass through NAT routers.
Rob
22 Apr
22 Apr
4:10 p.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
Hi there
Am 22.04.2018 um 10:43 schrieb Rob Janssen:
Of course for directly connected networks there will
be no NAT, but
there are those networks
that are connected to internet via consumer internet connections (and no
IPIP tunneling)
and the traffic from those networks to the 44.190 space will pass
through NAT routers.
This is not a special problem for the 44.190 space. It affects every
direct connected 44 announcement for those users that cannot use IPIP
tunneling because they don't have a plain IPv4-connection. In Europe it
is very common to give normal customers a so called "DS-Lite Connection"
or a plain IPv6-connection. Everything that must be reached in the
IPv4-world from those custumers sites mostly goes through this ugly
"carrier-grade-nat (CGN)" which in most cases doesn't work very well for
our special needs.
73s de Egbert DD9QP
2438
days inactive
2438
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
DD9QP Egbert -
Rob Janssen