nanog mailing list archives
Re: misunderstanding scale
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:47:28 -0700
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less ugly than CGN. Nick
Well, IMHO, it’s slightly less ugly. CGN will usually be a second layer of NAT imposed on an already NAT’d connection. At least with NAT64, you’re usually dealing with a single layer of translation. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: misunderstanding scale, (continued)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Tore Anderson (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale William Herrin (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale William Herrin (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale William Herrin (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Warren Bailey (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale William Herrin (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Doug Barton (Mar 22)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Nick Hilliard (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Paul Ferguson (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Timothy Morizot (Mar 23)
- IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale] Paul Ferguson (Mar 23)
- Re: IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale] Timothy Morizot (Mar 23)
- Re: IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale] Dobbins, Roland (Mar 23)
- Re: IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale] Mark Tinka (Mar 23)
- Re: IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale] Timothy Morizot (Mar 24)
- Re: IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale] Mark Tinka (Mar 24)