[OpenAFS-devel] fileserver -> client NAT ping

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> Any thoughts?

If one must do this (and it is a pragmatic solution), then one might want
to add in the RFC 6598(*) CGN reserved shared address range of
100.64.0.0/10 since if one sees that, that means the user is likely directly
connected to a MSO using CGN (rather than using a low-end consumer NAT
box).  And CGN boxen may also have low timeouts (your MSO will vary).

Gary

(*) I was a pragmatic proponent of the shared address space allocation
while it was in the ARIN process for the same reasons; It is not what I
would prefer, but you sometimes have to do what you have to do to
make things work, and CGN(**) was happening.

(**) And while I would also prefer there be no CGNs, I also understand
that they too are a pragmatic solution.