nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 23:53:05 +0900
Given that, with NAT, IPv4 address space will last forever and
that people still insisting on IPv6 requires NAT, there is no
point to deploy IPv6.
Even for architectural purity, NAT44 can, but NAT46 and NAT64
can't, be improved to have the end to end transparency.
Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: fun with ports, was if not v6, what?, (continued)
- Re: fun with ports, was if not v6, what? John Levine (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Masataka Ohta (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Mark Andrews (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Masataka Ohta (Sep 08)
- Re: if not v6, what? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Carsten Bormann (Sep 04)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Andrews (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Levine (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Stephen Satchell (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Levine (Sep 19)