nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:22:30 -0700
On 04/29/2013 11:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
If the existing cards handle CGN without additional licensing, then the only real cost is personal, my sanity, and the company need/will not factor that in.
One thing to consider is what the new support load will be from issues dealing with CGN causing new breakage. That might be baked into your support already, but at larger scale it probably isn't. Maybe it's marginal, but it's worth asking. Mike
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Randy Bush (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jimmy Hess (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jimmy Hess (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Michael Thomas (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS joel jaeggli (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Mark Andrews (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jimmy Hess (Apr 29)