[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
> So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
> will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
> One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP's interest
> to deploy v6 on the client side because each new v6 site that lights up on
> the internet side is less traffic forced through the CGN gear which is
> ultimately
> a cost down. So maybe an alternative to a death penalty is a molasses
> penalty:
> make the CGN experience operable but bad/congested/slow :)
Hm, sounds like NAT64 or MAP to me (although, honestly, we may end up
making MAP "too good".)
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross