Community discussions

 
efaden
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Topic Author
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:55 am
Location: New York, USA

Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:20 pm

Would love to see some devices with hardware NAT.
 
mcskiller
newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:12 am
Location: Argentina
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:54 pm

+1

Enviado desde mi XT925 usando Tapatalk 2
 
sdv
just joined
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:30 am

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:16 pm

+1 .
 
WildWurger
just joined
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:36 am

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:47 am

+1 +1
 
sasskass
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:39 pm

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:34 am

hello,

72cores are not enough :D :D :D ?

...Wait till there will be 10k cores and 1k cores for control these 10k cores
 
User avatar
rmmccann
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: USA

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:43 pm

What is "hardware NAT"? I didn't realize there was more than one type.
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. --Douglas Adams
 
sasskass
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:39 pm

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:34 am

hello
hardware nat means that the nat is done in chip not through the sw in other words its like a gpu video acceleration in games.

Aleksander
 
WildWurger
just joined
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:36 am

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:03 am

agree
 
User avatar
saaremaa
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Baltijos šalių miestas

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:09 am

+100500
CMDR Saaremaa (Gutamaya Sierra Alpha Alpha)
 
User avatar
rmmccann
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: USA

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:05 pm

I can see how you could get a performance gain, but in reality how much NAT needs to be done before that gain is realized? With as powerful as some of these RBs are (or x86 units), I can't see it benefiting me a whole lot. I imagine this is geared more towards the CGNAT crowd?
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. --Douglas Adams
 
FIPTech
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:56 pm

how much NAT needs to be done before that gain is realized

In a provider network, the latency should be kept at a very small value (ideally in the us range for each device), and even more importantly should be kept constant so that there will be no added jitter to packets.

A hardware processing (something like a FPGA or ASIC for example) can keep a constant and very low latency (for example all packets on all ports could be routed in a couple clock pulses).

Another advantage of hardware processing is that regardless what you do at the software layer, hardware processing should stay bugfree (as soon as the hardware logic is bugfree).


Multicore is a lot better than singlecore processing, but it is still serial processing, this mean that latency cannot be constant and bugs can be introduced more easily.
 
DBob
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:13 pm

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:03 am

That would be a very nice feature.
But let me ask, if Mikrotik routers will have such a feature, wouldn't we lose some features, which couldn't be solved by HW?
 
dim
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:53 pm

+1 +1
 
oreggin
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:21 pm

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:25 pm

http://www.taifatech.com/files/TF470_Pr ... ief_02.pdf

http://www.taifatech.com/files/TF480-Pr ... -04-08.pdf

Something like these? It is enough for 100M uplink. But if we need 1G or 10GE wire-speed NAT then we need something like this + TCAM + design + garnish:

http://www.marvell.com/network-processors/xelerated-ax/

It would be a little bit expensive but who know?
 
istenrot
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:14 pm

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:37 pm

how much NAT needs to be done before that gain is realized
In a provider network, the latency should be kept at a very small value (ideally in the us range for each device), and even more importantly should be kept constant so that there will be no added jitter to packets.
Not a good idea, really. Hardware implementations always imposes some scalability issues which on the other hand can be dealt by upgrading CPU/NPU and memory resources on software implementations. A quite good solution to deal with jitter issues on software implementations is to dedicate a CPU/NPU core or two just to handle data plane processing and keep control plane processing away from those cores. You also need to realize that a data plane does much much more than just NATing packets before handing them to a forwarding plane. For example classifying, filtering, queuing, accounting and so on. Implementing some part of a router on hardware would not gain a noticeably better latency because most of processing still uses software and you would trple the manufacturing costs of a router device. Not to mention about inability to add new features to NAT processing later on products' life cycle.

Best Regards,
Ilari Stenroth
 
User avatar
shahbazian
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:22 pm
Location: Iran
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:36 am

I think FastTrack can respond to your needs in the high bandwidth (1Gbps and 10Gbps) NAT.
so view this topic http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=96302
Learn MikroTik to improve your network.
( MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCUME, MTCIPv6E, MTCINE )
MikroTik Certified Trainer & Consultant
RIPE NCC Trainer
 
stackflow
just joined
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:07 am

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:14 pm

I think FastTrack can respond to your needs in the high bandwidth (1Gbps and 10Gbps) NAT.
so view this topic http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=96302
I enabled FastTrack last month, and it turn out to be slowing down all my connections since i use it in combined with PCC loading balancing.

Hardware NAT is supported by some routers with a MTK chip in it, and it really speed everything up.
 
stackflow
just joined
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:07 am

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:20 pm

+1 +1
 
JimmyNyholm
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:16 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Feature Request: Hardware NAT

Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:29 pm

But wait NO....

Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for doing stuff in asic/fpga instead of cpu... But providers doing NAT?! Please don't IPv4 space is scarce I know but:
Please make IPV6 work so we may sooner then later shut down ipv4 and be gone with all nat that is breaking all kind of protocols.

We then face nat64 witch is a predetermistic nat system that could easly be offloaded to an fpga or something.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests