[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Sun Sep 24 04:55:21 CEST 2017
> In both scenarios relying on only IPv4 is insanity, it's a business decision, and probably has many factors behind it. you and i might think it unwise, but 'insanity' is a bit in the weeds. > They are beyond help not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and other NATs of many flavors. i just don't like the result. but, as i said, we have demonstrated time and again that we can not seriously affect the tragically slow deployment of ipv6. so i do not make decisions based on changing that. >> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot >> still use a v6 prefix ;) same here, darn it. welcome to NTT B-Flets land. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]