nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:22:59 +0900
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition,
Thus almost guaranteeing a call to the support desk for each and every single game console, because the PS3 and PS4 doesn't have a configuration interface for that, and the XBox probably doesn't either (and if it does, it's probably something that Joe Sixpack can't do without help).
With usual NAT? That is not my problem.
But, if you want to run a server at fixed IP address and port, port forwarding must be static.A laudable network design for my competitors. Feel free to deploy it at a realistic sized ISP and let us know how it works out.
Are you saying there is no realistic sized ISP offering fixed IP addresses without NAT? If not, additional setup of static port forwarding on NAT boxes can not be a problem. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- IPv6 deployment excuses Ca By (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ca By (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Spencer Ryan (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mike Hammett (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Matt Hoppes (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Alarig Le Lay (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Hugo Slabbert (Jul 01)
- RE: IPv6 deployment excuses Gary Wardell (Jul 01)