|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:27:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7DeW31M1dpOAU2hGmXkPBrQ_Nfj-LYWE-fp02663WmF9A@mail.gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, > but both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a > lack of control as seen from the end user point of view (no port > forwarding etc). What it does however, is make things like GRE work. Some are surprised that there is actually non A+P protocols being used by customers. For instance legacy PPTP uses this, so some business VPNs run into problem with MAP or LW4o6. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |