On 05/09/2014 08:49, "Andy Davidson" <a...@nosignal.org> wrote: > >That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking >about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only >NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it.
Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. > >Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; >giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity >to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the >home doesn¹t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and >getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because >there¹s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. See above. Regards, Neil.
