Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Ned,

On Nov 26, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Again, it seems clear that since I'm using it I don't regard it as
unacceptable... The real question is how it will compare to whatever IPv6 automatic renumbering support ends up in SOHO routers. (Please note that I am entirely indifferent to the potential capabilities of IPv6 - what matters is what I can buy, not what the specifications say is possible.) At this point in
time I an quite skeptical it will ever work as well as 1:1 NAT does.

Sorry for misunderstanding your earlier post, as it seems like we are in agreement about this.

Margaret


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]