On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser <bens...@queuefull.net> wrote:
> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. That doesn't make it > accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak support > for claims that email would work better. I don't think that's a great analogy. NAT444 is CGN, the web is not DNS. If I say I can chop down a tree with a red ax, can you disprove that by saying that you can chop it down with any color ax? > Well, if your user does nothing but send email then perhaps even UUCP would > be good enough. But for the rest of us, until IPv6 penetration reaches all > the content/services we care about, we need dual v4+v6 connectivity. If we get dual v4+v6 connectivity quickly enough, we do not need LSN (including NAT444). Cheers, ~Chris > Cheers, > -Benson > > > > -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org
