On Nov 22, 2013, at 9:04 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
For example, from my perspective, CGNs look at lot more like
"IPv4 forever" (and the end for even reinterpreted end-to-end
services) than they do like a reasonably-short-term IPv6
transition strategy. Is that "moving on"?
CGNs are expensive. Why would people prefer to maintain them if the IPv6
infrastructure was working? I don't get the impression that anybody wants
CGNs around forever.