Excellent, thanks! Will dig into it. Oliver
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- :o@>
