nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length
From: Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen () imacandi net>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:27:03 +0200
Joe Abley wrote:
But surely he's not an end-user. He's an ISP, which means he's (potentially) an LIR.
My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from RIPE to start testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a dual stack network so that when the time comes, just switch on IPv6 BGP neighbors and update the DNS.
But at almost 10.000 EUR per year it's an experiment I can't afford.
Current thread:
- NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 14)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 14)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Crist Clark (Nov 18)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Joe Abley (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 19)
- RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 22)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Leo Vegoda (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 14)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 19)