24 Mar
2014
24 Mar
'14
8:47 p.m.
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less ugly than CGN.
Nick
Well, IMHO, it’s slightly less ugly. CGN will usually be a second layer of NAT imposed on an already NAT’d connection. At least with NAT64, you’re usually dealing with a single layer of translation. Owen