nanog mailing list archives
RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: <michael.dillon () bt com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:22:56 +0100
For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack.What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge? Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being publicly discussed and compared.stewart bamford gave a good presentation about this very thing 4 nanogs ago (or maybe 5)> There are some support issues to keep in mind of course.
Perhaps it was this one? http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0510/pdf/bamford.pdf Note that Level3 did choose to use 6PE for their deployment rather than dual-stacking. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jeroen Massar (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Adrian Chadd (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David W. Hankins (May 30)
- Re: DHCPv6 and stateless autoconf, was: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 30)
- Re: DHCPv6 and stateless autoconf, was: NANOG 40 agenda posted David W. Hankins (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 30)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 26)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Martin Hannigan (May 26)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 26)