[Jool-list] jool setup

[Petre Tudor]

Hello Aberto, Jordi


many thanks for the quick and detailed answers

@Alberto - actually the resources usage was the next question, but you
answered already; it looks like I found the software which does what I
need, the rest is in the details of the implementation.


@Jordi - the whole idea is thought for the residential users of an
emerging isp, as an attempt to minimise the ipv4 usage and also to
easily implement ipv6; the idea is in the early stages, but I imagine
something like a linux gateway running jool in front of an ipv6-only
network (ip's are assigned via pppoe), through which all uses exit;
those visiting ipv6 sites, go directly and those requesting ipv4-only
sites will be nat64-ed.

I am fully aware that a solution which covers 100% of the possible cases
is utopic, but I am happy if I can cover the normal cases; for the
"exotic" ones I could always assign an ipv4 via the dual stack pppoe and
solve the problem (these being the exceptions and not the rule) 


many thanks again for answering so quick on a saturday evening,


cheers,


petre


On 8/11/2018 21:27, Alberto Leiva wrote:
> These don't really address your first question directly, but might
> serve as a reference point. They are everything I managed to collect
> that is both public and refers to performance:
>
> (https://mail-lists.nic.mx/pipermail/jool-list/2018-July/000199.html)
> First off, you're definitively not hitting the performance limit of Jool - it
> easily scales to multiple Gb/s of throughput. There must be something else
> that is causing your issues.
>
> (https://mail-lists.nic.mx/pipermail/jool-list/2017-October/000158.html)
> Jool, even 3.5.4 Jool, withstands T-Rex's torture traffic without
> flinching. There are no significant performance issues to worry about. CPU
> usage is at 1% at worst and there are no packet drops.
> ...
> I can now say fairly confidently that Jool is pretty darn
> fast, even without the latest performance tweaks applied, as evidenced from
> the fact that, now that whatever was hobbling before is gone, it is pretty
> clear that Jool can keep up to at least this configuration of T-Rex with
> flying colors.
>
> (https://mail-lists.nic.mx/pipermail/jool-list/2016-September/000091.html)
>> What is the CPU load on the x86 SIIT-BRs from Jool?
> Our are practically idle. They are translating about 100Mb/s of mostly
> web traffic. The hardware is quite old even, Sun X4170s with 2x
> quad-core Intel L5520 CPUs. Less than a quarter of a single CPU core is
> used for the entire system (so not only Jool), the remaining 7.75 CPU
> cores are idle.
>
> --------
>
> BTW: We're currently working on a performance bug that affects packets
> that never traverse physical interfaces:
> https://github.com/NICMx/Jool/issues/267
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:50 PM Alberto Leiva <ydahhrk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> is the setup above feasible for networks with several thousand users
>>> (between 5-10k)
>> Performance-wise, as a developer, I don't really have a means to test
>> that level of traffic. Maybe somebody else in the list has that
>> information.
>>
>> Functionality-wise though, Jool won't stop you. Just make sure that
>> you have enough IPv4 transport addresses to mask all of that.
>>
>> Also, I'd suggest that you keep a decent understanding of this:
>> https://jool.mx/en/usr-flags-pool4.html#--max-iterations
>>
>>> is there a latency induced for throughputs of more than a gb ?
>> Not that I know of. (Why would that happen?)
>>
>>> exists the possibility of defining a pool of ipv4 addresses when
>>> nat64-ing and not doing 1-to-1 specific rules ?
>> Yes: https://jool.mx/en/pool4.html
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM Petre Tudor <petre.tudor at cte.ro> wrote:
>>> hello
>>>
>>> i am trying to minimize the usage of the ipv4 addresses by assigning to
>>> the users only ipv6 and nat64-ing them to the internet. (the final goal
>>> would be to assign routable ipv4 only to those users who really need
>>> them and pay them as an extra service; the normal users who don't have
>>> specific requirements will only receive an ipv6 address and get nat64
>>> for the only-ipv4 destinations.
>>>
>>> before i start i have a few questions regarding the jool features
>>> (please excuse if they are too trivial, I am new in this knowledge area):
>>>
>>> - is the setup above feasible for networks with several thousand users
>>> (between 5-10k)
>>>
>>> - is there a latency induced for throughputs of more than a gb ?
>>>
>>> - exists the possibility of defining a pool of ipv4 addresses when
>>> nat64-ing and not doing 1-to-1 specific rules ?
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> petre
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Jool-list mailing list
>>> Jool-list at nic.mx
>>> https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list