nanog mailing list archives
Re: Production-scale NAT64
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:19:46 +0200
On 26/Aug/15 16:13, Izaac wrote:
Yes, I'm curious about this too. I'd like a solid list of providers to avoid.
NAT64 is opt-in. It will mostly be used for customers that can no longer obtain IPv4 addresses. Service providers do not like NAT64 anymore than you do, but there needs to be some way to bridge both protocols in the interim. What you should be more interested in is which service providers have deployed it at scale where it is not causing problems, as those are the ones you want to be connected to when the IPv4-hell hiteth the faneth! Mark.
Current thread:
- Production-scale NAT64 Jawaid Shell2 (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Clinton Work (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 William Herrin (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Ca By (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 William Herrin (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Tore Anderson (Aug 25)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Ca By (Aug 20)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Tom Lanyon (Aug 25)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Izaac (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Ca By (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Jared Mauch (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Jared Mauch (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Tore Anderson (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Andrews (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Tore Anderson (Aug 26)
- Re: Production-scale NAT64 Mark Tinka (Aug 26)