[159607] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Jan 16 12:01:15 2013
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1301161128550.19463@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:59:28 -0500
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Justin M. Streiner
<streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
> I would hope that PlusNet has valid, well-thought-out reasons for deploying
> CGN instead of IPv6. Not knowing those, I can only jugde their position on
> its face: foolish and short-sighted.
Move along, nothing to see here. Barring a few fanatics, everyone here
has known for several years now that CGN would be required for
continuing IPv4 support regardless of the progress of IPv6.
If you spin it right, it's a "Free network-based firewall to be
installed next month. Opt out here if you don't want it." And the
fewer than 1 in 10 folks who opt out really aren't a problem.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
