nanog mailing list archives
Re: Carrier Grade NAT
From: Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 05:53:32 +0000
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
.....
Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you need to do from day 1.That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true.
For the 99.99% of the users who believe that facebook and twitter *are* the internet, at least facebook is IPv6 enabled. 50.00%(*)! Yes, I think we can all stipulate that those participating on this list are different, and have different expectations, and different capabilities, than those other 99.99%. Gary (*) If we are going to make up statistics, four significant digits looks better than one.
Current thread:
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT, (continued)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Doug Barton (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT TJ (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Fred Baker (fred) (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Fred Baker (fred) (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Doug Barton (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Mark Andrews (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Owen DeLong (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Owen DeLong (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Matt Palmer (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Gary Buhrmaster (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Mark Andrews (Jul 30)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Ca By (Jul 30)