nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT444 or ?
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:26:06 +0800
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 04:48:16 PM Leigh Porter wrote:
Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on the 'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not have to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts and such.
I certainly hope so - let's hope ISP's go out and deploy v6 beyond the core, as content providers deploy v6 for their content, rather have a stand-off between both ends of fence on who should move first. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?), (continued)
- CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Alexander Harrowell (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Christian de Larrinaga (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Dobbins, Roland (Sep 09)
- RE: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Christian de Larrinaga (Sep 09)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 13)
- RE: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 13)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 14)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 10)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? David Israel (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mike Jones (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Sep 08)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 09)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 09)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 13)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 13)