To: Gondring
Yeah—I still don’t understand why NAT isn’t being pushed to increase the number of addresses available.
4 posted on
10/07/2010 7:16:54 AM PDT by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: ShadowAce
Beyond the issues discussed at length, see the penultimate graf. It is a terrible kludge.
5 posted on
10/07/2010 7:27:37 AM PDT by
Gondring
(Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
To: ShadowAce
I still don’t understand why NAT isn’t being pushed to increase the number of addresses available. Because it's a stop-gap measure, not a true solution. The main reason we haven't transitioned to IPv6 yet is that NAT removed the emergency some years ago.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson