Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;) On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgs...@mykolab.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA256 > >Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic? > >Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks, >enterprises, etc. are moving very fast. > >- - ferg > > > >On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote: > >> Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of >> the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big >> deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So >> unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I >> don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. >> It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the >> door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic. >> >> My .02. >> >> On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, "Jim Popovitch" <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey >>> <wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote: >>>> This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) >>>> >>>> You should too. >>> >>> uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with >>> those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6. >>> >>> -Jim P. >> >> >> >> > > >- -- >Paul Ferguson >VP Threat Intelligence, IID >PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) >Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > >iF4EAREIAAYFAlMrZekACgkQKJasdVTchbIXxwD+NLe6LUPJCbpKXGfevbPzAGWy >BJu93FYH2Lfl9lMjTToA/2uGkqbI/ibO1eHH412gw4A6yLT7LLUoVK8yXwJiGRm1 >=mbB3 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
