| 1 |
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:29:38 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> We should be pounding away on the fact that we're running out of |
| 5 |
> >> IP |
| 6 |
> >> > addresses... period... end of story. If people ask about NAT, |
| 7 |
> >> > then mention that the undersupply will be so bad that even NAT |
| 8 |
> >> > won't help. |
| 9 |
> > In my presentations, I've stopped bothering to wait for people to |
| 10 |
> > ask about NAT, because it starts off in their minds from nearly the |
| 11 |
> > beginning--and until they get that question answered, most of what |
| 12 |
> > I say washes past them as ancillary and not as important as the |
| 13 |
> > question pressing on their minds. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In one short paragraph you said exactly what I was trying to say in 4 |
| 17 |
> mails (and still didn't succeed) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You know I agree except the only people that brought NAT up and |
| 20 |
got fixated on it were those that were advocating ipv6!?!? |
Archives