nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:15:22 +0200
On 3/Jul/16 12:01, Ruairi Carroll wrote:
Core of the issue is that we _need_ to get an ICMP message back to the original "real server" who sent it. It's a non-issue in the SP space, but imagine if your ECMP groups were stateful in both directions...
Okay.
Think about it in layers, with each little piece adding up to the overall cost:
I understand your points - to your comment, my question is around whether it is cheaper (for you) to just run IPv6 in lieu of IPv6 and IPv4. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Hugo Slabbert (Jul 01)
- RE: IPv6 deployment excuses Gary Wardell (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mike Jones (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ruairi Carroll (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses William Astle (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Denis Fondras (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mark Tinka (Jul 03)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mark Tinka (Jul 03)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ruairi Carroll (Jul 03)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mark Tinka (Jul 03)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ruairi Carroll (Jul 03)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Tore Anderson (Jul 03)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mark Tinka (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Tore Anderson (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mark Tinka (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ruairi Carroll (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Matt Hoppes (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mark Andrews (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Matt Hoppes (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 04)