> On Mar 26, 2022, at 09:37 , Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > Have you ever considered that this may be in fact: > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the > way you expect > > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved that > it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps the scale > of that challenge.
It’s certainly clear that he does not understand that in terms of cost-benefit ratio, the benefit of deploying his idea divided by the cost is a significantly lower number (in my estimation) than the much larger benefit of deploying IPv6 divided by the rather limited remaining costs involved in doing so. Owen > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:53 AM Paul Rolland <r...@witbe.net > <mailto:r...@witbe.net>> wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:35:30 -0400 > "Abraham Y. Chen" <ayc...@avinta.com <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> wrote: > > > touching the hardware, by implementing the EzIP technique (*/disabling/* > > the program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 > > netblock), an existing CG-NAT module becomes a RAN! As to universal > > Have you ever considered that this may be in fact: > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the > way you expect > > > Paul
