[137205] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 status
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Franck Martin)
Wed Feb 9 22:02:29 2011
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: franck@genius.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:02:12 +1300 (FJST)
From: Franck Martin <franck@genius.com>
To: Charles N Wyble <charles@knownelement.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D535413.4040909@knownelement.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles N Wyble" <charles@knownelement.com>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 3:57:23 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 status
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>=20
> On 02/09/2011 06:35 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> > Looking at the recent exchange on the list re IPv6, it seems we are
> > in the "whose fault is it?"
> >
> > =E2=80=A2 Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
> > =E2=80=A2 Anger (why is this happening to me ?)
> > =E2=80=A2 Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if ...)
> > =E2=80=A2 Depression (I don't care anymore)
> > =E2=80=A2 Acceptance ( I'm ready for whatever comes)
> >
> > So I guess we progressed from last year which was denial!
> >
> > Can we move on with the program and get to the bargaining phase?
>=20
> Isn't that CGNAT? :)
>=20
I have a friend, each time someone tells him "our gear is carrier grade", h=
e asks them "Is it that bad?"
