On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 04:48, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Dambier writes: > > > > Right now they dont sell IPv6 to their customers at all. > > > > They (dtag.de) keep telling me infrastructure is not > > ready yet. > > Read: we stuffed around for years despite being told IPv6 > is coming and failed to request IPv6 support from our vendors > in time to be ready when our customers requested it. Actually I think this should read "we didn't bother to upgrade our routers yet, and now can not afford to as we don't know if we will have jobs at the end of the year. > > > Customer equipment is not ready yet and after > > all there is no NAT66 yet and no firewall. > > Read: we havn't done our home work and we are going to [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > you by stating there is no CPE equipement or firewalls. In > addition to that we are going to add some more [EMAIL PROTECTED] about > NAT being required. > Seems that they never heard of Windows XP and prove the point of this mailing list that people assume that what worked in v4 (i.e. NAT) should be done the same in v6. Also I am not sure about the firewalls, I know that Checkpoint was working on this 2 years ago but don't know what progress they made. > > > Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont > > aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables > > exploding. > > Which the other ISP's who supply IPv6 to their customers > can just do without requiring NAT66. This was actually the only argument that is close to legitimate, as the routing tables will get larger - maybe if they used some of the user fees to upgrade the hardware (more memory?) they would be able to handle this, as there are many routers out there for the past few years that can handle this problem.
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
