|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:50:12 -0600 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <523E030F-CF84-4700-A92D-D281D599F37A@muada.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 2/9/2011 2:17 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > But just CGNAT with no IPv6 is going to be very bad. Maybe 95% of > your users won't notice, but do you really want the other 5% to tie > up your support lines? Yes, as that will cause them to produce an IPv6 product for those customers (even if it's a specialized CPE they ship to those 5% that does a tunnel back to an ISP server which connects to native IPv6). You must have demand and pressure to push companies to spend money. Helpdesk calls count. Let the phones ring. The suits will listen then. Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |