nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:50:54 +0900
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
Yep. You asked your vendors to support equivalent IPv6 things at the time though, so when you roll out IPv6 the support is ready, right? The point is that these deficiencies exist in IPv4, and I'm not sure how you would solve them in IPv6 (assuming you can make all the changes you want, and get instant industry-wide support) any better than you solve them in IPv4.
Who says the IPv6 solutions need to be better than IPv4? Adrian
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Owen DeLong (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Greedy Routing Rod Beck (Feb 18)
- Re: Greedy Routing Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 18)
- RE: Greedy Routing Deepak Jain (Feb 18)
- RE: Greedy Routing Jake Mertel (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Barak (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nick Hilliard (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)