Re: OK, final NAT66 argument (Was: NAT Not Needed To Make Renumbering Easy

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

 



Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>> Only if IPv6 were worth deploying.

> Isn't this a little... late? A few hundred million devices are deployed 
> with IPv6, including all the commonly deployed versions of Windows and 
> IOS. By comparison, here's an overview of how an alternative might fare:

Within IETF, maybe. As ITU, these days, is doing much better than
IETF that IPng could better be discussed there or somewhere else.

> 6. On the Tuesday of IETF80 the IANA switches to armageddon rules and 
> transfers the last ten /8s to RIRs.

Can you say NAT and unicast class E?

							Masataka Ohta

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]