On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote: > > > Can anyone think of a > > reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might > > cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users? > > None that I can think of. branding
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Perry Lorier
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Donald Stahl
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Merike Kaeo
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Mark Tinka
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward
- Testing IPv6 support on th client's machine (Was: NAN... Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Testing IPv6 support on the client's machine (Was... Nathan Ward
- Code for IPv6 test for content providers (was Re: NAN... Nathan Ward
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow