Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com writes:
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly.
OK, so the NAT is taking place in the router you got from Comcast, not
in Carrier Grade NAT in Comcast's network. A fine distinction but an
important one. The external address of your
On 9-4-2013 1:10, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And
by the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
I have seen consumer NAT routers assign addresses
Quoting:
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:31:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
To: nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism
through
On 4/8/13 9:23 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 4/8/13 5:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:45 , Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com wrote:
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And
by the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0
On 4/7/13 9:45 PM, Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com wrote:
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by
the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
Sure they can. And I'm sure if you checked the WAN interface of the device
it has a public IPv4 address.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't disagree. You are actually making the exact point I was
attempting to make. The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to
deploy IPv6, it is caused by it.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean that any individual ISP right now can choose
to
* Owen DeLong
The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
is caused by it.
In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
ubiquitous IPv6 deployment ten years ago, there would be no IPv4
depletion, and there would be no CGN. However, that ship has
On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
* Owen DeLong
The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
is caused by it.
In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
ubiquitous IPv6 deployment ten years ago, there would be
On Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:41:34AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
eliminated.
Surely the
On 4/8/13 9:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
* Owen DeLong
The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
is caused by it.
In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
ubiquitous
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP
doesn't require any CGN that causes the SP network to put up with the
NAT state. This means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no
longer apply.
For me as an operator,
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its
internet customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
It's still NAT.
AIUI, the
* Owen DeLong
Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
eliminated.
I agree with very much reduced. However, and IMHO,
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its
internet customers do IPv4 address sharing and
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
AIUI, the standards-track flavour of MAP, MAP-E, is *not* NAT - it is
tunneling, pure encap/decap plus a clever way to calculate the outer
IPv6 src/dst addresses from the inner IPv4 addresses and ports. The
inner IPv4 packets
* Tore Anderson
Does anyone see MAP-E being implemented on regular linecards or is it
going to be implemented on processor based dedicated hardware? At least
initially, I would just assume it's going to be some kind of CGN blade.
No idea, sorry.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
If this is to be called translation, then any tunneling mechanism that
works by stacking layer-3 headers, including GRE, IPIP, ESP, and
proto-41, must be also called translation.
Oki, my bad. I read
* Tore Anderson
The tunnel endpoint will 99.99% of cases be a CPE with a NAPT44
component though, so there is some NAT involved in the overall solution,
but it's pretty much the same as what we have in today's CPEs/HGWs. The
only significant difference is that a MAP CPE must be prepared to
On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a whole IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the
I understand why MAP-E is not translation now.
so far, the sexiest implementation of statless a+p to date.
randy
In a message written on Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:41:34AM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
On 4/8/13 7:23 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a whole IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
The problem is NAPT44 in the
On 4/8/2013 9:58 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
That happened a long time ago. I realize the people like to think of
wireless providers as different, they really aren't. A big chuck of
our mobile gaming customers come to us via carrier operated nat
translators. Some of them now come to us via ipv6,
Indeed MAP-E requires CPE replacement/upgrade cost.
But I would like to share JANOG Softwire WG Activity.
http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58856/apnic35-janog-softwire_1361559276.pdf
MAP-E already supported by 6 vendors,7 implementations.
It includes 2 open source(OpenWRT
Can anyone from Verizon comment on what IP space that's being used for
this? Or perhaps what the rDNS mask will look like?
From an abuse perspective, knowing that an IP is being used for this can
make the difference between traffic looking like abuse and traffic
looking like multiple legitimate
: Monday, April 8, 2013 6:01 AM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP
doesn't require any CGN that causes the SP network
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.comwrote:
Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right that
MAP wouldn't have been as beneficial as claimed.
glad it's cross
-2012-NGN-IPv4-Exhaust-
IPv6-Strategy.pdf
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tore Anderson t...@fud.no
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 6:29 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
Cc: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
: nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its internet
customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
What may make 'much more sense' in one
...@mac.com, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:21 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Dual-stack in the home networks will stay with us for a long time
(beyond 2020!) until v4-only user devices and v4-only apps get refreshed.
I
:23 AM
To: Tore Anderson t...@fud.no
Cc: nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a whole IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need
, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented
encoding.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Mon
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
I think he means patent encumbered.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:13:11PM +, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Chris,
UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
encumbered?
If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need
/map/
http://mapt.ivi2.org:8039/readme.txt
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tore Anderson t...@fud.no
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:20 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com, nanog list
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
I think he means patent encumbered.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:13:11PM +
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com, nanog list
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
I think he means patent encumbered.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:13:11PM +, Rajiv Asati (rajiva
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Oh, it certainly is (per the IETF IPR rules).
which rfcs? I can find a draft in softwire:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-01
In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties
IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4 over
IPv6 alternative.
Tom
On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Chris,
UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
' is .. disingenuous at best.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013
Once upon a time, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com said:
But knowing that a significant (50%+) of android devices may not support
IPv6 (just like my brand new Samsung Galaxy 7'' tablet (just bought over
the weekend) being v4-only) and may not be upgraded by their users to the
right
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by the
way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 7, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know.
Is
Chris,
Your points are well taken.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
- Original Message -
From: Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And
by the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
I have seen consumer NAT routers assign addresses in all three RFC1918
blocks, though I
On Apr 8, 2013, at 07:58 , joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/8/13 7:23 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a whole IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need for
to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a
screenshot to illustrate this very point.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
In what
On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:54 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Like you, I would like to be optimistic about many v4-only apps and
v4-only devices becoming dual-stack sooner than later.
But knowing that a significant (50%+) of android devices may not support
IPv6 (just like my
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:45 , Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com wrote:
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by the
way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
Some do.
Owen
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 7, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Rajiv Asati
On 4/8/13 5:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:45 , Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com wrote:
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by
the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
Some do.
ATT U-verse used to have 10.0.0.0/8
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:51 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
then if you
: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:52 PM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: Fabien Delmotte fdelmot...@mac.com, nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:54 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Like you, I would like to be optimistic about many v4
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.comwrote:
For ex, there are numerous android apps that are not supported
on many android devices. :=(
I think this is actually up to the developer of the APP not the hardware
nor OS manufacturer.
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:40:09 -0400, Christopher Morrow said:
I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support v6
would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through that :(
The answer depends on whether the person making the decision thinks they'll
have
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support
v6 would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through
that :(
IPv6 deployment is not a short term solution to IPv4 address depletion.
Would you be less upset
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through
IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
My 2 cents
On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through
IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the
water without
Well if the RFCs would just be set in stone already like Moses's 10
commandments
and if the programmers would actually start writing code for v6
and if the web site hosting servers would at least have dual stack
enabled on them
it would be great.
But till then we just change a RFC here,
Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com writes:
On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
You mean like a few linux servers running iptables
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:54:04 +0300, Alex said:
Well if the RFCs would just be set in stone already like Moses's 10
commandments
and if the programmers would actually start writing code for v6
and if the web site hosting servers would at least have dual stack
enabled on them
it would be
* Mikael Abrahamsson
My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4
address exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at
any time.
Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses.
I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in
the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Joshua Smith juice...@gmail.com wrote:
Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right
* Mikael Abrahamsson
Otoh, ARIN isn't exhausted yet so getting IPv4 addresses there should
still be a lot cheaper than doing CGN?
From what I hear several ISPs in the ARIN region prefer to obtain
second-hand IPv4 addresses (or deploy CGN boxes) over requesting
addresses directly from ARIN, and
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote:
It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans. Their
IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying 3Q12 :(.
I've been trying to get some information from internal contacts, but so
far, no go.
jms
Would you be less upset if there was IPv6 access and CPE based DS Lite
ds lite, nat in the core and cpe forklift. one of the worst mechanisms.
randy
On Apr 7, 2013, at 00:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism
through IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
CGN doesn't
If I'm an ISP deploying a network for users today, I effectively have to
provide some mechanism to allow those users to get to IPv4 only content.
There is way too much stuff out there that is IPv4 only today.
Yes, content providers should provide IPv6 accessbut if I'm an ISP, I
can't really
On 4/6/2013 11:33 PM, Huasong Zhou wrote:
I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in
the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Joshua Smith juice...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know.
Is your MacBook directly connected to the modem or a router? I presume the
latter.
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com wrote:
I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address
DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. MAP is also
CGN.
Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP doesn't
require any CGN that causes the SP network to put up with the NAT state. This
means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no
Dual-stack in the home networks will stay with us for a long time (beyond
2020!) until v4-only user devices and v4-only apps get refreshed.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the ISP access needs to stay dual-stack,
thanks to MAP, 464XLAT etc.
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Apr 7, 2013,
In all fairness, upgrading the legacy last-mile e.g. DSL infrastructure to
support native IPv6 may be too expensive to make any economic sense.
Note that Vz FiOS users are not affected by this. And noting that Vz has ~5.5M
FiOS HSI customers and ~3M DSL customers (per the last earning report),
- Original Message -
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com
Note that Vz FiOS users are not affected by this. And noting that Vz
has ~5.5M FiOS HSI customers and ~3M DSL customers (per the last
earning report), and noting that DSL network is not getting any new
investment (in
=
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [raj...@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 21:11
To: Huasong Zhou
Cc: Joshua Smith; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know.
Is your MacBook directly connected
MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its internet
customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
What may make 'much more sense' in one network, doesn't necessarily make
as much since in another
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:21 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Dual-stack in the home networks will stay with us for a long time (beyond
2020!) until v4-only user devices and v4-only apps get refreshed.
I disagree. I think that v4-only apps and devices will get relegated to being
On Apr 7, 2013, at 15:43 , Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote:
If I'm an ISP deploying a network for users today, I effectively have to
provide some mechanism to allow those users to get to IPv4 only content.
There is way too much stuff out there that is IPv4 only today.
Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be
the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.
--
Josh Smith
kD8HRX
email/jabber: juice...@gmail.com
Phone: 304.237.9369(c)
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com
Good to see that they are providing a way for users to opt out. I'm hoping
that other ISP's will do the same when they implement CGN.
Oliver
-
Oliver Garraux
Check out my blog: blog.garraux.net
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux
On Sat, Apr
It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans.
Their IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying 3Q12 :(.
On 4/6/2013 9:32 PM, Joshua Smith wrote:
Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be
the first time I've been happy to
On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting.
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
blockquote
What is CGN - and How to opt-out The number and types of devices using the
On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
Interesting.
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
Matthew Kaufman
- Original Message -
From: cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com
Interesting.
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
What I find amusing is how they call it Carrier Grade NAT one time, and
then switch to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
That depends on what you think the prices are for IPv4 addresses and what
you think the prices are for CGN boxes. At the prices I'm hearing, it's
On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
You mean like a few linux servers running iptables nat-masquerade?
You think the Carrier Grade in
On 07/04/13 12:11, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting.
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
blockquote
...
...CGN will not impact the
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.auwrote:
...CGN will not impact the access,
reliability, speed, or security of Verizon’s broadband services. ...
...
/blockquote
Good luck with that, pretty much by definition it has to do all four
(albeit at levels that
86 matches
Mail list logo
