nanog mailing list archives
RE: NAT444 or ?
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:11:18 +0000
-----Original Message----- From: Arturo Servin [mailto:arturo.servin () gmail com] Sent: 07 September 2011 01:37 To: Serge Vautour Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: NAT444 or ? NAT444 alone is not enough. You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite. Whilst you still have global v4, use it. The best is to deploy dual-stack, but that won't last for too long. Regards, as-
I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now. So I am expecting to see some issues. A+P would be nicer perhaps, but none of the CPE I have will support it. I'll try and give people who do NAT in their CPE a public address for as long as I can, but it'll soon run out and then NAT444 will have to be used and some things will just not work very well. -- Leigh Porter ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
Current thread:
- NAT444 or ? Serge Vautour (Sep 01)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Cameron Byrne (Sep 01)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Douglas Otis (Sep 05)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Arturo Servin (Sep 06)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Tore Anderson (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Daniel Roesen (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Geoff Huston (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Seth Mos (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 09)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 09)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Tore Anderson (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Cameron Byrne (Sep 01)