[125525] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Mon Apr 19 10:54:40 2010
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:51:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4BCC6B14.3000108@foobar.org> (Nick Hilliard's message of "Mon,
19 Apr 2010 16:39:16 +0200")
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* Nick Hilliard:
> On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do
>> so [...]
> Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted
> eyeball network? The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could
> never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or the
> business side.
I'm pretty sure the acceptance of NAT varies regionally. I think
there's a large ISP in Italy which has been doing NAT since the 90s.
So it's not just the mobile domain.
It can be tricky to introduce a new NATted product and compete with
established players which do not NAT, though.
