Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

"STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops
Message-ID <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F17B02BF3@crexc50p> 
> For those contemplating NAT444, what's wrong with NAT464?  In theory
> that middle "4" represents a single, logical administrative domain,
> no?

Existing home routers/gateways don't support NAT464. I need for the router vendors to focus on implementing a top-notch, full IPv6 stack. The less work they have to do for legacy IPv4, the better. NAT444 requires no new code in the home gateway, allowing them to put their resources on doing IPv6 right.
Barbara
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.