"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

• Previous message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Next message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:

> So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
> will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?

Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?

> One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP's interest
> to deploy v6 on the client side because each new v6 site that lights up on
> the internet side is less traffic forced through the CGN gear which is 
> ultimately
> a cost down. So maybe an alternative to a death penalty is a molasses 
> penalty:
> make the CGN experience operable but bad/congested/slow :)

Hm, sounds like NAT64 or MAP to me (although, honestly, we may end up 
making MAP "too good".)

-- 
Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://doodle.com/bross            Skype:  brandonross

• Previous message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Next message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]