[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT444 or ?
...
> The striking thing I picked up is that NTT considers the CGN equipment
> a big black hole where money goes into. Because it won't solve their
> problem now or in the future and it becomes effectively a piece of
> equipment they need to buy and then scrap "soon" after.
It would get scrapped when all servers support dual stack. What year
is that predicted to occur?
> They acknowledge the need, but they'd rather not buy one.
> That and they (the isp) get called for anything which doesn't work.
-d
- References:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: sergevautour at yahoo.ca (Serge Vautour)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: arturo.servin at gmail.com (Arturo Servin)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos)