[128185] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jens Link)
Mon Jul 26 00:14:27 2010
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jens Link <lists@quux.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:13:07 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20100724082932.GA12472@mx.ytti.net> (Saku Ytti's message of
"Sat\, 24 Jul 2010 11\:29\:32 +0300")
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> writes:
> RFC4193 + NAT quite simply is what they know and are comfortable with.
NAT is *not simple*. NAT adds one more layer of complexity. When
using multiple NAT things get worse.
In most cases people don't want or need NAT they are just used to it and
old habits die hard.
Jens
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@guug.de | ------------------- |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
