[Jool-list] WARNING (find_bib_session6): I'm running out of pool4 addresses for mark 0.

[Alberto Leiva]

> As you can see, nat44 on linux is using the client port that the
> internal host used as it's own client port.

There's some RFC somewhere that recommends hiding the internal ports.
So Jool does it. But that's probably not really important right now.

> So if ports cannot be shared with NAT44, are the range of ports that
> jool does use somehow reserved so that NAT44 doesn't tromp on them?

If I remember my old research, and it's still relevant, NAT44 uses
32768-61000 by default, so Jool uses 61001-65535 by default. Something
like that.

But that's just the default config. You can add all the ports you want
to Jool through pool4 commands.

Please read

https://www.jool.mx/en/pool4.html
https://www.jool.mx/en/bib.html

> I never did get an answer to why:

Well, did you delete the instance before running that command?

    jool -i ilinx bib display --tcp --numeric

Depends on an existing instance like

    jool instance add ilinx ...

Any of the following will destroy your instance:

- jool instance remove ilinx
- modprobe -r jool
- shutting down or rebooting the system

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:35 PM Brian J. Murrell <brian at interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-03-16 at 17:38 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Not sure why are arguing with the author.
>
> Who is arguing?  I am trying to understand.  Part of understanding and
> learning is asking questions about how and why things are done.
>
> > But, they aren't all available, because we can't share a port with
> > NAT44.
>
> And there is exactly the answer to the question I was asking.  Not
> being a kernel hacker, I was not aware of this.
>
> So if ports cannot be shared with NAT44, are the range of ports that
> jool does use somehow reserved so that NAT44 doesn't tromp on them?
>
> I never did get an answer to why:
>
> # jool -i ilinx bib display --tcp --numeric
> Error: The kernel module returned error 3: This namespace lacks an instance named 'ilinx'.
>
> which kind of stopped the troubleshooting dead in it's tracks.
>
> Do I still have the syntax wrong in some way?
>
> Cheers,
> b.
>