[144349] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Fri Sep 9 03:36:26 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: "carlos@lacnic.net" <carlos@lacnic.net>, Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:37:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+z-_EUwC+Q3qikS2673vFeeduO2MXyxjDgHdxLYtXEOXzT3hw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3011@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2011 05:10
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>=20
> When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
> work, it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)
>=20
> Warm regards
>=20
> Carlos
You could say the same thing about NAT44 from the very start!
IPv4 just needs to die sooner rather than later. For now though, there is =
a good many years of trickery left ;-)
--
Leigh Porter
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
