On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -0000, "Chris L. Morrow" said: > > On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote: > > > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem > > > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor > > > 2) solve your favorite fib/rib/cam/convergence limit, > > > nor 3) make the infrastructure inherently either > > > easier to operate or more secure. > > > but ipv6 is more secure, yes? :) (no it is not) > > Does the relative security of IVp4 and IPv6 *really* matter on the same > Internet > that has Vint Cerf's 140 million pwned machines on it? was the ":)" not enough: "I'm joking" ?? > > Just askin', ya know? some people do think that it does... they would be wrong, but they don't know that.
- Re: Testing IPv6 support on the client's machine (Was: ... Nathan Ward
- Code for IPv6 test for content providers (was Re: NANOG... 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
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Adrian Chadd
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Vince Fuller
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward
- NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Lamar Owen
- Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl