nanog mailing list archives
Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 () dcrocker net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:44:05 -0700
I'd have to counter with "the assumption that NATs are going away with v6 is a rather risky assumption." Or perhaps I misunderstood your point...
i think we are agreeing. i think that any prediction that users will not use nats for v6 involves logic that can, at best, be called idealistic. naive would be another term to consider. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Current thread:
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008), (continued)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Crist Clark (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) David Andersen (Jul 07)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Daniel Senie (Jul 09)
- RE: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Tony Hain (Jul 07)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 07)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Joseph S D Yao (Jul 08)