nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:23:37 +0900
I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated
the ietf has recanted and is hurriedly trying to get this back on track. of course, to save face, the name has to be changed.
with people talking about carrier grade NATS I think combining these with NAT-PT could help with the transition
cgn is not a transition tool. it is a dangerous hack to deal with the problems of a few very large consumer isps who lack sufficient space to number their customer edge. randy
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mark Andrews (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Zaid Ali (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mark Andrews (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joe Provo (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Steven Lisson (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Brandon Galbraith (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Frank Bulk (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Frank Bulk (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Bob Snyder (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 20)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)