[75372] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Fri Nov 12 06:12:58 2004
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF6749ADD1.DC0EAFE4-ON80256F4A.003BD487-80256F4A.003C47D0@radianz.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:10:04 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--=-pAxcQKQeS8uZ+0GPyb1u
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 10:58 +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
> > Regardless of the merit of NAT, there is little merit in IPv6+NAT as it=
=20
> > has all the downsides of both. If you can live with NAT, stay in IPv4=20
> > and talk to the IPv6 world over IPv4<->IPv6 NAT.
>=20
> Or upgrade to NAP (Network Architecture Protection) *grin*
That is actually exactly what should be told to any administrator that
asks for "IPv6 NAT":
"No, in IPv6 it is done differently, it is then called NAP, which is
waaay cooler and saves you a lot of money and troubles".
Greets,
Jeroen
--=-pAxcQKQeS8uZ+0GPyb1u
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iD8DBQBBlJoMKaooUjM+fCMRAknVAJ4uyAoQVDyLnh6O+RkbIYfzmBjiBQCgwX4e
qsTZcu45ZubMqF4ZAKWsB/Q=
=xGp9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-pAxcQKQeS8uZ+0GPyb1u--
