nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: James R Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:43:06 -0400
Recently, someone alleged wrote wrote:
It is hard to make the case to eliminate v4 in use cases where it is working perfectly fine (especially RFC1918 inside an enterprise).
In light of multiple past mergers of existing IPv4 RFC1918 networks resulting from company acquisitions and mergers, I think I can make a case that “working perfectly fine” is only a temporary condition. James R. Cutler James.cutler () consultant com GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment John Levine (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Seth Mattinen (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Doug Barton (Oct 02)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Naslund, Steve (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Doug Barton (Oct 03)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Naslund, Steve (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Alan Buxey (Oct 03)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Aaron Gould (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment James R Cutler (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)