On 4 Sep 2014, at 23:03, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish! > > NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6.
That’s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. > - it may not be desirable but even those that rolled out IPV6 years ago will > need it. the only way NAT44 would have been avoidable would have been for > everyone on the planet to press the IPV6 button at the same time! the only > odds longer than that happening anytime soon is Roy Hodgson being England > manager in a years time! Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the home doesn’t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because there’s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. > to cover another point, only the crazy of crazies would think that anyone had > a vested interest to slow down V6 deployment, only folks I can see are the > existing RIRs and the brokers trying make some money out this situation CGN tin vendors. :-) > (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know > VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a phone > - it's the killer app bell. ;) Congrats, hope to hear more about it next week in Belfast. Andy
