RE: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF
Gary Sparkes via NANOG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BN0PR10MB53667B5F0FF34A146C55CDFBD5332@BN0PR10MB5366.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> |
Sure, but IPv8 proposes the same thing essentially - with EXTRA infrastructure -----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:01 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]> Subject: Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF Am 30.04.26 um 22:22 schrieb Gary Sparkes via NANOG: > Much simpler just to NAT between A B C D and E's networks and do gradual segment renumbering, and much less infrastructure/hardware to do so as well. That is a PITA. In certain cases you want interconnection between the systems and then the NAT is just another annoying thing in the process. -- Gruß Marco Junk-Mail bitte an [email protected] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZMPWHIAQOAHDTLYYUKST6WZWE4OZCIBG/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SVKYPD6DYRW73NERJHERSZ426CU7UHQC/