On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:34, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
So, Chris, if you expect this allocation will avoid the costs of
signing everyone up for IPv6-capable CPE, what is your
transition plan? Or are you advocating an IPv4-forever model?
If the latter, can you explain succinctly to the rest of us how
you expect it to work?
You snipped the comment I was replying too, and thus the context of my
statement.
What I was replying to was a statement that we should just give
everyone a CPE that could handle the same space inside and outside. My
response was that if we are to replace CPE it should be with IPv6
capable CPE, _not_ CGN tolerant CPE.
What I did not say was anything about prolonging the life of IPv4. In
fact I have argued against that several times, a few in this very
thread.
Hopefully that clears up your confusion.
Cheers,
~Chris
best,
john
--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf