nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:45:33 +0900
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. Sounds like those consumer ISPs better get started on rolling out dual stacks to the CPE.
except that, if you do not have enough ipv4 pace to number your cpe perimeter, you can't do that. again, take a look at draft-ymbk-aplusp-02.txt randy
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Brandon Galbraith (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Steven Lisson (Feb 17)