RE: NAT444 or ?

[Leigh Porter <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3011 () gmail com]
> Sent: 09 September 2011 05:10
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
> work,  it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)
>
> Warm regards
>
> Carlos

You could say the same thing about NAT44 from the very start!

IPv4 just needs to die sooner rather than later. For now though, there is a good many years of trickery left ;-)

--
Leigh Porter


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________