nanog mailing list archives
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:16:21 -1000
i had a totally different picture in my head, which was of a rolling outage of routers unable to cope with "full routing" in the face of this kind of unaggregated/nonhierarchical table
been there done that
followed by a surge of bankruptcies and mergers and buyouts
and that is not what happened last time, so why should it happen this time? randy
Current thread:
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6), (continued)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Ted Hardie (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Andy Davidson (Oct 03)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Paul Vixie (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) bmanning (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 02)
- Message not available
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 02)