nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, but both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a lack of control as seen from the end user point of view (no port forwarding etc).
What it does however, is make things like GRE work. Some are surprised that there is actually non A+P protocols being used by customers. For instance legacy PPTP uses this, so some business VPNs run into problem with MAP or LW4o6.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Filip Hruska (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- IPv6 deployment excuses Ca By (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ca By (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Spencer Ryan (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mike Hammett (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Matt Hoppes (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 04)