[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Nat

Subject: Nat
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:07:49 +0900
In-reply-to: <CAAbPayKVqf7r=77Jjks8WJOgm5eqFpD4OqUyTopKBPa2TRvQNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <D29747F0.11F8D4%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAAbPayKVqf7r=77Jjks8WJOgm5eqFpD4OqUyTopKBPa2TRvQNA@mail.gmail.com>

> It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to
> use.

it is.  but, judging by people's actions, in many cases it seems less
painful than going to ipv6.  off-pissing, but reality.

randy

References:
- Nat
  - From: ahmed.dalaali at hrins.net (Ahmed Munaf)
- Nat
  - From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason)
- Nat
  - From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Nat
  - From: charles.lists at camonson.com (Charles Monson)

Prev by Date: Nat
Next by Date: ISP marking ipsec traffic based on certificate, how is this possible?
Previous by thread: Nat
Next by thread: Nat
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread