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: