On 9/12/21 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I doubt many vendors were chomping at the bit to support CGNAT
definitely. they hate to sell big expensive boxes.
Back in the early 2000's the first rumblings of what would eventually
turn into CGN started popping up at Cablelabs. I went to the EVP of
> I doubt many vendors were chomping at the bit to support CGNAT
definitely. they hate to sell big expensive boxes.
randy
On 9/12/21 1:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years
whichever it is, then they'd of course have to start moving too,
because no upstream.
And they would fight it tooth and nail, just like they do now
you speak as if it was religion or the
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:35 , Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 11, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>>
>>> If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away
> Edicts never work. More carrot, less stick.
but the ipv6 stick has worked so well over the last 25 years
>> If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years
>> whichever it is, then they'd of course have to start moving too,
>> because no upstream.
>
> And they would fight it tooth and nail, just like they do now
you speak as if it was religion or they are bad people. neither is
> On Sep 11, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>
>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>
>> If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years
>> whichever it is, then they'd of course have t
7 matches
Mail list logo
