Hi, Bill:
0) Thanks for bringing up the NANOG posting guideline. We now have
something tangible to discuss.
1) Section 6. looks most relevant. So, I copy and paste it below for
our discussion:
A. 6.1.1. "... > relevant excerpt 1 response to excerpt 1 ...
": This seems
Hi, Ant:
1) As I Cc:'ed you, I attempted to contact the author of the IPv4+
draft a few days ago to offer my reading of his work. I have not heard
any response. In short, I believe that IPv4+ is paraphrasing the scheme
of the unsuccessful RFC1385 that EzIP Draft cited as Informative
Refere
ted for low-level engineers (“for dummies”).
Eduard
*From:*NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] *On
Behalf Of *Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:14 AM
*To:* Matthew Petach ; Masataka Ohta
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still
Of Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:14 AM
To: Matthew Petach ; Masataka Ohta
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported
Hi, Matt:
1)The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of the
benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced
Hi, Matt:
1) The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of
the benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced to this mailing
list about one month ago. That discussion has gyrated into this thread
more concerned about IPv6 related topics, instead. If you missed that
in
5 matches
Mail list logo
