[137774] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Grundemann)
Fri Feb 18 18:27:32 2011
In-Reply-To: <B260A840-31D9-46CB-AADA-B31859D77447@queuefull.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:27:13 -0700
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Cc: Zed Usser <zzuser@yahoo.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> wr=
ote:
> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. =A0That doesn't make=
it accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak su=
pport for claims that email would work better.
I don't think that's a great analogy. NAT444 is CGN, the web is not
DNS. If I say I can chop down a tree with a red ax, can you disprove
that by saying that you can chop it down with any color ax?
> Well, if your user does nothing but send email then perhaps even UUCP wou=
ld be good enough. =A0But for the rest of us, until IPv6 penetration reache=
s all the content/services we care about, we need dual v4+v6 connectivity.
If we get dual v4+v6 connectivity quickly enough, we do not need LSN
(including NAT444).
Cheers,
~Chris
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
>
>
>
--=20
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org
