CGNAT version 2
-
Wow, there really is a game for everything.
-
My reading comprehension is weak. I thought each customer should pay them $ 10M a year.
Still better than switching
-
I would love a horror game set in a massive building with nothing but networking equipment. With the goal being to fix and patch old parts of the system finding more and more awful things that have happened to the previous employees.
Not exactly what you’re looking for but this came across my radar recently https://store.steampowered.com/app/2939600/Tower_Networking_Inc/
-
This post did not contain any content.
Literal spaghetti
-
I don't know who pulled that cabling, but they need to be hung with it.
Looks AI to me
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is the news real?
-
I would love a horror game set in a massive building with nothing but networking equipment. With the goal being to fix and patch old parts of the system finding more and more awful things that have happened to the previous employees.
Portal 3?
-
Looks AI to me
Negative. That is a 3D print that I left unattended.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Every day I regret becoming a network engineer more and more
You have a clusterfuck of a clusterfuck because corpocunts make more money from keeping everyone on shit old stacks
The network engineer to communist/anarchist pipeline is real
-
I would love a horror game set in a massive building with nothing but networking equipment. With the goal being to fix and patch old parts of the system finding more and more awful things that have happened to the previous employees.
Good news, they have these, and you even get paid to do it!
Not nearly enough mind you.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know this is humor, but for the record this wouldn't work. Each simultaneous TCP connection needs a unique four-tuple (source address, source port, destination address, destination port). If a lot the people behind the NAT try to connect to the same place (destination address and port) at the same time (something popular like Google, YouTube or Netflix), and their source address is the same, the source port needs to be different for each connection. So after at most 65535 connections within a short time the NAT would run out of ports and no one behind the same NAT would be able to open new connections to the same place until the NAT mapping expiries.
So you could have at most tens of thousands of people behind the same NAT, maybe even fewer to make it reliable.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fuck whoever chose to make the acronym the same, but this is already possible by being a terrible person and sticking PAT behind traditional NAT
-
Not exactly what you’re looking for but this came across my radar recently https://store.steampowered.com/app/2939600/Tower_Networking_Inc/
I knew of Tunnet, but this looks cool. I wonder if it’s at all helpful for getting to grips with some networking intuition, I always feel behind when it comes to anything networking related.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Funny how many here took this to be real, judging from the reactions. To me it's an obvious joke.
Question to you guys: How do you suppose 200 million customers will share the less than 65'536 ports that are available on that one address?
-
I would love a horror game set in a massive building with nothing but networking equipment. With the goal being to fix and patch old parts of the system finding more and more awful things that have happened to the previous employees.
And the horror is the employees that turned into monsters that just want to get their computer fixed and chase you. And to placate the monsters you have to fix their problem. Each employee has a different problem. But if you mess up you just anger more employees.
-
Funny how many here took this to be real, judging from the reactions. To me it's an obvious joke.
Question to you guys: How do you suppose 200 million customers will share the less than 65'536 ports that are available on that one address?
Easily doubled by assigning the TCP and UDP ports to different users!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Every day we move further away from God.
-
Funny how many here took this to be real, judging from the reactions. To me it's an obvious joke.
Question to you guys: How do you suppose 200 million customers will share the less than 65'536 ports that are available on that one address?
By creating new protocols that then become new quasi-standards that every system has to integrate because "everybody else does it too"?
(and yeah this one is a joke - ridiculing something that really exists by exaggerating it)
-
Is that what spaghettification looks like?
I think it's cheese-stringification.
-
Funny how many here took this to be real, judging from the reactions. To me it's an obvious joke.
Question to you guys: How do you suppose 200 million customers will share the less than 65'536 ports that are available on that one address?
A TCP session is a unique combination of client IP, client port, server IP, and server port.
So you can use the same IP and port as long as the destination is a different IP or port.
This means that in principle you could use the same IP and port to connect to every IP address on the Internet using 65536 concurrent sessions.
This wouldn't help going to popular destinations, since they have a lot of people going to the same IP address and port, but for many (most?) of them you probably have some sort of CDN servers in your data centers anyway.
