nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT444 or ?
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:44:13 +0200
When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something work, it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)You could say the same thing about NAT44 from the very start!
many of us did randy
Current thread:
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?, (continued)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 13)
- RE: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 13)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 14)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 10)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? David Israel (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mike Jones (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Sep 08)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 09)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 09)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 13)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 13)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Simon Perreault (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 09)