nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8)
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 07:02:12 -1000
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data showing how CGN is more expensive would be very helpful.It depends.
...
That math may or may not make sense for your network..
Right. My question was more along the lines of pointers to written up case studies, empirical analyses, actual cost comparisons, etc. between CGNs and IPv6 that could be presented (in summarized form) to executives, government officials, etc. Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Daniel Roesen (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 joel jaeggli (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Franck Martin (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) Lee Howard (Apr 07)
- Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) David Conrad (Apr 09)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Smith (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 James Hess (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Andrews (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Jim Burwell (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Steven Bellovin (Apr 03)