On 12 June 2015 at 07:14, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi Baldur,
>
> MAP is *not* NAT; that's what's so neat about it. The users do get a
> public IPv4 address (or prefix!) routed to their CPE's WAN interface,
> towards which they can accept inbound unsolicited connections.
>
True if you are only
* Baldur Norddahl
> The high tech solution is stuff like MAP where you move the cost out
> to the CPE. But then you need to control the CPE - if you have that
> then great. You would still want to sell a non-NAT (and MAP is NAT)
> to users that require a public IPv4 address, so you still need to
Hi,
The price for IPv4 is about $10 per address. I do not expect that to become
much more expensive in the short term, especially not in the Arin region
where there is such abundance of allocated address space that could be
freed for a quick dime.
So is $10 one time fee for new users too much?
W
: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Warren
wrote:
> Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience,
Hi Nich,
Looks like the correct audience to me.
> We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the
>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Warren
wrote:
> I figured that duel-stack would be the way to go, but I worry that ARIN might
> not give us space for duel stack out of their reserved pool
> (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10), and that this .13 of a /8
> won't make it to ne
iling
list?
Thank you,
- Nich Warren
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:13 PM
To: Nicholas Warren
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Warren
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Warren
wrote:
> Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience,
Hi Nich,
Looks like the correct audience to me.
> We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the
> ground up. [...] The main reason we are even con
..@fiberinternetcenter.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:20 AM
> To: Nicholas Warren
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)
>
> Actually , there is no better audience that I know of to ask this
> question. And my information might be more mar
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Bob Evans wrote:
> Actually , there is no better audience that I know of to ask this
> question. And my information might be more marketing related and hardware
> skeptical.
>
> My IPv6 direction choice was much easier than yours. You need to figure
> out how to bu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Greenfield 464XLAT (In January)
Actually , there is no better audience that I know of to ask this
question. And my information might be more marketing related and hardware
skeptical.
My IPv6 direction choice was much easier than yours. You need to figure
out how to bui
Actually , there is no better audience that I know of to ask this
question. And my information might be more marketing related and hardware
skeptical.
My IPv6 direction choice was much easier than yours. You need to figure
out how to build an IPv4 network today from scratch in a world where the
IP
In message
, Ca By writes:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Nicholas Warren
> wrote:
>
> > Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience,
> > We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the ground
> > up. I was hoping I could get an opinion, or two, on
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Nicholas Warren
wrote:
> Sincere apologies if this e-mail is inappropriate for this audience,
> We are (going to be) a startup ISP building a new network from the ground
> up. I was hoping I could get an opinion, or two, on how everyone feels
> about 464XLAT. I sa
13 matches
Mail list logo
