Comment by orangeboats
Comment by orangeboats 10 months ago
Your typical router shouldn't fill up its port mapping table. In fact, the 4th layer isn't involved at all so "ports" don't even exist as a concept.
Comment by orangeboats 10 months ago
Your typical router shouldn't fill up its port mapping table. In fact, the 4th layer isn't involved at all so "ports" don't even exist as a concept.
Give me some numbers then on how this materially affects latency or bandwidth.
Does NAT port exhaustion not count as "materially affecting bandwidth"? At least, the maximum bandwidth is capped. Furthermore, the keepalive packets (required to maintain a port mapping) must cause the maximum useful bandwidth to be reduced, do they not?
Either way, expecting no effects on latency/bandwidth when additional processing is involved is a rather insane take. If anything, you should be the person presenting evidences to prove your position. Ideally, the cost effectiveness of whatever you present should be included too.
Anecdotally, I have experienced IPv4 slowdown due to CGNAT overload. Make of it what you will.
Sure but none of this poses a latency or bandwidth bottleneck.