nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: Lamar Owen <lowen () pari edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:04:45 -0500
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 01:35:46 pm Jack Bates wrote:
I understand and agree that CPEs should not use NAT66. It should even be a MUST NOT in the cpe router draft.
Do you really think that this will stop the software developers of some CPE routers' OS code from just making it work? Do you really think the standard saying 'thou shalt not NAT' will produce the desired effect of preventing such devices from actually getting built?
Current thread:
- Re: quietly...., (continued)
- Re: quietly.... Brian Johnson (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Dave Israel (Feb 02)
- RE: quietly.... Brian Johnson (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Jon Lewis (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jay Ashworth (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Lamar Owen (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Lamar Owen (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Simon Perreault (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Matthew Palmer (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Randy Carpenter (Feb 03)