|
|
|
|
|
|
by eqvinox
136 days ago
|
|
|
That's all true on a statement level, but doesn't make an IPv4:IPv4 NAT solution better than either VRF/encap or IPv6 mapping. The benefit with VRF/encap is that the IPv4 packets are unmodified. The benefit with IPv6 mapping is that you don't need to manage IPv4:IPv4 tables and have a clear boundary of concerns & zoning. In both cases you don't give a rat's ass which prefixes the customer uses. That math/estimation you're doing there… just entirely not needed. |
|
|