|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:51:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org> To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <532E1384.1010209@foobar.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote: >> CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find >> unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the >> driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6. > > don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less > ugly than CGN. True, but the ugliness of NAT64 and friends will decrease over time as more people go v6. The ugliness of IPv4 in general, and CGN/LSN will likely increase over time as people have to jump through more NAT hoops to reach an increasingly ugly/fragmented IPv4 Internet. jms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |