nanog mailing list archives
Re: Nat
From: Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:14:20 +0000
Mark, Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market will get us all there eventually. I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you feel pain and do what I want. :) -mel beckman
On Dec 16, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote: This doesn't put pain on those that have enough addresses that they don't need to NAT yet. We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only. MarkOn 17/12/2015, at 10:39 AM, Charles Monson <charles.lists () camonson com> wrote: We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and SYN/ACK would be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and increase it by 100ms each year. It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to use.
Current thread:
- Re: Nat, (continued)
- Re: Nat Octavio Alvarez (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Livingood, Jason (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Josh Reynolds (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat alvin nanog (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Larry Sheldon (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Charles Monson (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mel Beckman (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Larry Sheldon (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Stephen Satchell (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Lee Howard (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Owen DeLong (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Randy Bush (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Berry Mobley (Dec 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Nat Josh Reynolds (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Matthew Petach (Dec 17)