[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8)
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data showing how CGN
>> is more expensive would be very helpful.
>
> It depends.
...
> That math may or may not make sense for your network..
Right. My question was more along the lines of pointers to written up case studies, empirical analyses, actual cost comparisons, etc. between CGNs and IPv6 that could be presented (in summarized form) to executives, government officials, etc.
Regards,
-drc
- References:
- legacy /8
- From: jeroen at mompl.net (Jeroen van Aart)
- legacy /8
- From: deleskie at gmail.com (jim deleskie)
- legacy /8
- From: nanog2 at adns.net (John Palmer (NANOG Acct))
- legacy /8
- From: gbonser at seven.com (George Bonser)
- legacy /8
- From: gbonser at seven.com (George Bonser)
- legacy /8
- From: wavetossed at googlemail.com (Michael Dillon)
- legacy /8
- From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon)
- legacy /8
- From: wavetossed at googlemail.com (Michael Dillon)
- legacy /8
- From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk)
- legacy /8
- From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- legacy /8
- From: wavetossed at googlemail.com (Michael Dillon)
- legacy /8
- From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8)
- From: lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard)