[137113] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (david raistrick)
Wed Feb 9 14:59:34 2011
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:58:34 -0500 (EST)
From: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D52E942.5000607@ispalliance.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Scott Helms wrote:
> For ISPs in this circumstance the choice will be CGNAT rather than IPv6 for a
> number of years because the cost is much lower and according to the vendors
> selling CGNAT solutions the impact to end users is (almost) unnoticeable.
Anyone care to define CGNAT? Google results for this are either unrelated
or "CGNAT will save us" or "CGNAT doesnt count" - no rfcs, no
explainations, nothing....
--
david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
