![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 22:34:44 +0900
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:
- Stateful NATs the size of the Internet not doable,
Stateful NATs are necessary only near leaf edges of ISPs for hundreds of customers or, may be, a little more than that and is doable. If you make the stateful NATs static, that is, each private address has a statically configured range of public port numbers, it is extremely easy because no logging is necessary for police grade audit trail opacity. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Apr 01)
- Re: V6 still not supported Rubens Kuhl (Apr 01)
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Apr 01)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Apr 01)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matthew Petach (Apr 02)
- Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Apr 02)
- RE: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Apr 04)
- Re: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Apr 04)
- Message not available
- Re: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Apr 06)
- Message not available
- Re: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Apr 06)
- Re: V6 still not supported Matthew Petach (Apr 02)
- Re: V6 still not supported Rubens Kuhl (Apr 01)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Apr 02)
- Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols Masataka Ohta (Apr 03)
- Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols Dave Taht (Apr 03)