[144320] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Wing)
Thu Sep 8 12:48:07 2011
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Seth Mos'" <seth.mos@dds.nl>, "'NANOG'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <BB679D1F-E58D-4EB1-A4EF-6C8C13E7547B@dds.nl>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:47:28 -0700
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
...
> The striking thing I picked up is that NTT considers the CGN equipment
> a big black hole where money goes into. Because it won't solve their
> problem now or in the future and it becomes effectively a piece of
> equipment they need to buy and then scrap "soon" after.
It would get scrapped when all servers support dual stack. What year
is that predicted to occur?
> They acknowledge the need, but they'd rather not buy one.
> That and they (the isp) get called for anything which doesn't work.
-d
