[144261] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Wed Sep 7 06:31:19 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:31:40 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2y5y0r72b.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 11:18
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>=20
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
>=20
> you may want to review the presentations from last week's apnic meeting
> in busan. real mesurements. sufficiently scary that people who were
> heavily pushing nat444 for the last two years suddenly started to say
> "it was not me who pushed nat444, it was him!" as if none of us had a
> memory.
>=20
> randy
>
Thankyou, I'm watching it now, but I am under no illusion that it will wor=
k well. NAT44 is bad enough.
--
Leigh
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
