[137162] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 9 17:49:01 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102091457350.15471@murf.icantclick.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:46:45 -0800
To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Try looking for the expanded terms:
Large Scale NAT
Carrier Grade NAT
NAT444
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:58 AM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Scott Helms wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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....
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
>=20
