NAT444 or ?

Leigh Porter leigh.porter at
Fri Sep 9 07:37:06 UTC 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3011 at]
> Sent: 09 September 2011 05:10
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: nanog at
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
> When you need to pile up this amount of trickery to make something
> work,  it's probably high time for letting the thing die :-)
> Warm regards
> Carlos

You could say the same thing about NAT44 from the very start!

IPv4 just needs to die sooner rather than later. For now though, there is a good many years of trickery left ;-)

Leigh Porter

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit 

More information about the NANOG mailing list