nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
If the IPv6 solutions are not going to be 'better' than v4, how about simply making sure that they are 'as good as' ipv4? Right now, I'd be hard pressed to think of a v6 function which is 'better' and I can think of a lot which are 'not as good as.' -David Barak Adrian Chadd wrote:
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: Greedy Routing, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mark Andrews (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mark Andrews (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leen Besselink (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 17)