NAT444 or ?
leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com
Fri Sep 9 07:37:06 UTC 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3011 at gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2011 05:10
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> 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
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 ;-)
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
More information about the NANOG