[154232] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tyler Haske)
Fri Jun 29 11:35:36 2012
In-Reply-To: <7CC35544-B0D0-40B4-9766-AF4813D745E9@puck.nether.net>
From: Tyler Haske <tyler.haske@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:33:11 -0400
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry you don't like it, and I know IPv6 will wash all this away
>> soon enough, but where I'm working we have no plans to implement IPv6,
>> or require our vendors/partners to readdress their networks to get a
>> VPN up.
>
> Just because there are no plans, this doesn't mean you shouldn't bring it up.
>
> Even if its a "radar"/"future" issue for their networking team, it does raise
> the profile in the asks with others.
>
> - Jared
Let it be known that I hate NAT with the burning passion of a million
suns. But I'm the junior in my workplace, and this is the advice of
the head honchos. I can easily see both sides of this. I would say
with a few implementations, (maybe 25 or fewer) NATing isn't that
difficult.
Granted we both know that NAT breaks basically everything and makes
troubleshooting a TON MORE FUN. But plenty of people out there (my
workplace included) would argue this till the cows come home.
