On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM Oliver O'Boyle <oliver.obo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread > adoption. > http://jool.mx/en/index.html Free open source nat64 > Oliver > > On Dec 20, 2017 12:51, "Michael Crapse" <mich...@wi-fiber.io> wrote: > > > +1 for Nat64. dual stack is just keeping ipv4 around longer than it needs > > to be > > > > On 19 December 2017 at 18:50, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason < > > > jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" < > > > nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of c...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > >> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can > figure > > > it out, surely an ISP can... > > > > > > > > Except for cases when it is impossible or impractical to update > > software > > > on a great number of legacy devices… > > > > > > > > JL > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, in those cases, they should use IPv6 + NAT64 or similar > mechanism. > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > >
