[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT444 or ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3011 at gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2011 05:10
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
> work, it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)
>
> Warm regards
>
> Carlos
You could say the same thing about NAT44 from the very start!
IPv4 just needs to die sooner rather than later. For now though, there is a good many years of trickery left ;-)
--
Leigh Porter
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
- References:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: davei at otd.com (David Israel)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: mike at mikejones.in (Mike Jones)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: carlosm3011 at gmail.com (Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo)