The IETF RFCs provided recommendations, identified deployment limitations and requirements for “carrier grade NAT” also called large scale NAT (LSN) or NAT 444. The IETF Network Working Group began analyzing this problem and beginning in 2009, published a series of “Request for Comment” (RFCs) to enhance traditional network address translation (NAT). ![]() Public Telecomm Solves IPv4 Exhaustion & Saves ~$2 Million Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT)Īs a result, service providers, including ISPs, broadband cable, and mobile operators, soon required a technology to stretch the limited pool of Public IP addresses even further and to meet some unique performance and feature requirements. ![]() As each customer CPE or mobile device required a public IP address and as consumer adoption quickly escalated, the problem of internet IPv4 exhaustion became dire. Standard NAT, which maps multiple stub domain internal addresses to a single global public address and vice versa, worked fine for consumer and corporate point solutions, but NAT deployments soon expanded beyond business networks to include home and mobile networks. Standard Network Address Translation – Translating Private IP to Public IP Addresses The diagram below depicts a simplified diagram of a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) gateway with NAT translating private addresses to public addresses. When the routing is between IPv4 networks the technology is referred to as NAT44 for network address translation from IPv4 to IPv4 addresses. To route internal hosts to external hosts, a NAT service translates private IP addresses to public IP addresses. The original design of network address translation allows multiple end customers to use any private address range for their internal networks. READ THE EBOOK: IPv6 – Are We There Yet? Standard NAT and IPv4 Addresses This protocol provided an address space of 128 bits (a total of 3.4×1038 addresses – approximately 340 trillion trillion) but it wasn’t until July 2017, 19 years later, that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) declared it an internet standard (RFC 8200). This memo was the first to discuss the consequences of the “eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IP address space.” Two years later RFC 1631, The IP Network Address Translator (NAT), was published.Ī protocol called IPv6, became a draft standard (RFC 2460) in 1998, as the successor to IPv4 and the long-term solution to IPv4 address exhaustion. In June 1992, as a result of the astounding growth of the internet, RFC 1338, Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy, was published. Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) was created as a solution to address this problem, primarily for service providers. However, IPv6 was not made to be backward compatible, and the problem of limited addresses still became an issue. IPv6 was envisioned as a successor protocol to IPv4 and would solve the limited address space. IP addressing was originally defined by four octets-four groups of eight bits, a standard called IPv4 -which resulted in over four billion unique values (actually, 4,294,967,296), so at the time it seemed we’d never run out.īy late 1980’s, however, it became apparent that the dramatic adoption rate of the internet would eventually deplete this large pool of addresses. Way back in the early days of the internet (the 1980s) every connected computer was intended to have its own unique public IP address.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |