Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann () gmail com>]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net> wrote:

> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web.  That doesn't make it accurate to claim that the web is broken, 
> and it's particularly weak support for claims that email would work better.

I don't think that's a great analogy. NAT444 is CGN, the web is not
DNS. If I say I can chop down a tree with a red ax, can you disprove
that by saying that you can chop it down with any color ax?

> Well, if your user does nothing but send email then perhaps even UUCP would be good enough.  But for the rest of us, 
> until IPv6 penetration reaches all the content/services we care about, we need dual v4+v6 connectivity.

If we get dual v4+v6 connectivity quickly enough, we do not need LSN
(including NAT444).

Cheers,
~Chris

> Cheers,
> -Benson




-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org