nanog mailing list archives
Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted]
From: Merike Kaeo <kaeo () merike com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:12:26 -0700
I've stayed out of this since I'm not following list closely right now but if there's been progress made in last 14 months on more providers in the US having IPv6-capable deployment it would be great to hear. When I was doing the v6 work for Connexions and looking at who to set up the v4/v6 eBGP sessions with only ONE provider had anything realistic. And we were announcing the /48 for about 6 months.....until the demise of a great system (Connexion) due to business reasons. Bummer. [and yeah - we were guinea pigs for what a provider would do with our own personal /48........]
I talked to a few other carriers but they had nothing 'right now' in Seattle......and of course that was a year ago. Glad to hear if it was today then I wouldn't have so much of an issue finding someone? An update would definitely be interesting....
- merike On May 30, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
I guess we have different definitions for "most significant backbones". Unless you mean they have a dual-stack router running _somewhere_, say, for instance, at a single IX or a lab LAN or something. Which is not particularly useful if we are talking about a "significant backbone".Rather than go back and forth- can we get some real data? Can anyone comment on the backbone IPv6 status of the major carriers? -Don
Current thread:
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted), (continued)
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) virendra rode // (May 30)
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) bmanning (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Perry Lorier (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (May 30)
- dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Patrick W. Gilmore (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Donald Stahl (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Merike Kaeo (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack simon (May 31)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch (May 30)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Mark Tinka (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
- Testing IPv6 support on th client's machine (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 30)