issues through CGNat (juniper ms-mpc-128g in mx960)

(please forgive cross-posting between jnsp and nanog.looking for anyone who
could help shed light)

I moved customers behind MS-MPC-128G (MX960) CGNat boundary a few nights
ago. for the most part it went well. with these couple issues. please let me
know what you know about this and how to fix. I don't know if it's fixed on
the endpoints, or in the cgnat config or what.

1 - IPSEC VPN

- Customer said the vpn connect light on cisco vpn router blinks (not
connected to vpn)

- I found out the vpn addresses that this cisco vpn router is trying
to connect to.

- I did a fix in cgnat rule stanza where all UDP 500 and 4500 traffic
to that distant vpn endpoint(s) will always be natted to one and only one ip
address (I did this thinking that the changing ip of the public pool
assigned ip addresses for udp 500 and 4500 was possible breaking it)

2 - PS4 gaming

- Customer said playing a few games (call of duty, etc) with Internet
players now doesn't work.

- They said the PS4 nat type is nat type 3 (strict) whereas before
the moved them to cgnat, it was NAT type 2 moderate and worked.

-Aaron

One of the biggest deal-breakers about the Miltiservices DPC and MPC is
that it does not support NAT Transversal (UDP hole punching), which is
probably the reason you're having trouble with the PS4 online gaming. It
also messes with VoIP too.

As for the IPsec issue, im not sure if that would be related to NAT-T, but
you'd probably need logs. Might just be easier to give anyone using an
IPsec tunnel a public IP.

-M

Not specific to Juniper, but it's NOT fixed.
You'll either start spending time on work-arounds or you start selling a new service with dedicated public IPv4 - more expensive than the CGNATed one. Or you can afford to still delay deploying CGN.

> I don't know if it's fixed on the endpoints, or in the cgnat config or
what.

Not specific to Juniper, but it's NOT fixed.
You'll either start spending time on work-arounds or you start selling a
new service with dedicated public IPv4 - more expensive than the CGNATed
one. Or you can afford to still delay deploying CGN.

Or, do us all a favor, and leave PS4 broken and refer your customers to
Nintendo for them to support ipv6. If you dont, then we all remain hostage
to nintendo and their dedicated ipv4 bs

That would be Sony...

Thanks for your replies...

In the last week or so I've been testing further...

Using the following items to slow/alleviate the otherwise randomness of ip's
and port's been generated via my cgnat boundary nodes...

APP - Address pooling paired
EIM - Endpoint independent mapping
EIF - Endpoint independent filtering (session-limit and outbound refresh are
recommended)
AMS Load balancing hash-key src-ip on my inside domain interface

These combinations of options seems to cause a few nicer things to occur to
help gaming and peer-to-peer and banking websites to work as they should.

Let me know if you have seen similar issues and successes or failures with
your cgnat deployment.

-Aaron