[144259] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Wed Sep 7 06:10:43 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>, Serge Vautour
<sergevautour@yahoo.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:11:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <86E509F1-FD44-46EE-A6A3-DC83A46BDD60@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arturo Servin [mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 01:37
> To: Serge Vautour
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>=20
>=20
> =09NAT444 alone is not enough.
>=20
> =09You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite.
>=20
> =09Whilst you still have global v4, use it. The best is to deploy
> dual-stack, but that won't last for too long.
>=20
> Regards,
> as-
I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now. So I am =
expecting to see some issues.
A+P would be nicer perhaps, but none of the CPE I have will support it. I'=
ll try and give people who do NAT in their CPE a public address for as lon=
g as I can, but it'll soon run out and then NAT444 will have to be used an=
d some things will just not work very well.
--
Leigh Porter
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
