On Nov 22, 2013, at 9:04 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > For example, from my perspective, CGNs look at lot more like > "IPv4 forever" (and the end for even reinterpreted end-to-end > services) than they do like a reasonably-short-term IPv6 > transition strategy. Is that "moving on"? CGNs are expensive. Why would people prefer to maintain them if the IPv6 infrastructure was working? I don't get the impression that anybody wants CGNs around forever.