[codebje]

I'm afraid I don't recall. I suspect that they could not have been, based on best practices for performance at the time and the fact that the problem existed at all. I did, however, find a reference to the problem:

https://meetings.apnic.net/32/pdf/Miyakawa-APNIC-KEYNOTE-IPv...

Slides 12-15 show the degradation of Maps in action. 20 connections per user is a heavily over-committed CGNAT, but that level of port sharing does happen.

[Dylan16807]

But the "connections per user" limit is per-webserver. You'd have to have thousands of users simultaneously loading maps off the same google server just to run out of ports on one IP.

I bet you could put 10k people behind each IP and never even get close to an issue of this type.

[codebje]

Carrier grade NAT puts thousands of users behind the same IP address - that's what it's for.

You can't put 10k people behind each IP and not have problems. That's 6.5 ports per person, you need one for each connection. Pretty much any website will have issues with that little connectivity.

[Dylan16807]

> Carrier grade NAT puts thousands of users behind the same IP address - that's what it's for.

It doesn't have to. 100:1 would work just fine. With IPs being about $25 each that's an acquisition cost of less than a dollar per user.

> That's 6.5 ports per person, you need one for each connection.

That's not how connections work. Each user could make a million connections as long as they're spread around different servers. The 65k limit applies to simultaneous connections to a single webserver. Only the most-connected server matters, so probably something at google/youtube/facebook, and even then most of those servers have multiple IPs.