On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:50 AM Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> wrote:
Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks < valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918 without running out of addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
OK.. I'll bite. What network design needs 40M endpoints and can't tolerate partitioned networks? There's eyeball networks out there that have that many endpoints, but they end up partitioned behind multiple NAT boxes.
Why would you assume partitioning is an acceptable design constraint ?
I don’t think the cellular networks in the USA, each with over a 100M subscribers, wants their customers partitioned, and that is why the IMS / SIP on each modern phone is exclusively ipv6, afaik
You don't need to partition the customers to partition the network. It's not like any single network entity scales to a 100M sessions in any case. You will need more than one SIP server.
You'll have multiple instances of "that user with 10.10.10.10", but that's easily addressed that by including the associated network segment. So you have "that user with 10.10.10.10 in segment A" and "that user with 10.10.10.10 in segment B". They can both be part of the same customer database or whatever
Bjørn
I understand you think it could work that way I am sharing with you that the gymnastics to make such a kludge work was reject years ago The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is ipv6-only, afaik. I believe you will find similar cases for hyper-scalers like google, fb, ... CB