On 4/06/2007, at 12:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support
to at
least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server
with v6
support, test, and not worry about i
If I read the thread so far correctly, Igor can't enable a single server
with v6, because the instant he updates the DNS so an MX for his domain
references a , that will become the preferred target for his domain
from the entire IPv6 world, and he's gonna need a load balancer from Day 0.
Thi
Actually, for me 100% feature parity (for stuff we use per vip) is a day-1
requirement.
That's obviously your choice. I don't know the first thing about your
application/services/systems but in my case my load balancer has nothing
to do with my application/services- and I would be frightened i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
>
>> That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support to at
>> least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server with v6
>> support, test, and not worry about it affecting productio
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
> That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support to at
> least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server with v6
> support, test, and not worry about it affecting production.
If I read the thread so far c
> Without naming any vendors, quite a few features that work
> with hardware assist/fast path in v4, don't have the same
> hardware assist in v6 (or that sheer enabling of ipv6 doesn't
> impact v4 performance drasticly).
> Also, quite a few features simply are not supported in v6
> (not to m
Donald Stahl writes:
> When an ISP's caching name servers ignore your 3600 TTL and
> substitute an 86400 TTL you end up disconnected for ~12 hours
> instead of ~30 minutes-
You write "when" rather than "if" - is ignoring reasonable TTLs
current practice?
(Ignoring routing updates for small route
Just a reminder,
The keysigning sessions are going to be during the morning
breaks during the general session, Monday through Wednesday, in the
Lake Sammamish room.
If you haven't already done so and plan to participate, please
add your key to the keyring at:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
:: >Not speaking directly for my employer (in any official capacity
:: > that is), but it's is *not* as easy as as just IPv6 enabling our network,
:: > enabling ipv6 on the servers, and putting up ipv6.yahoo.com. Currently,
:: > the biggest roadblock we
Not speaking directly for my employer (in any official capacity
that is), but it's is *not* as easy as as just IPv6 enabling our network,
enabling ipv6 on the servers, and putting up ipv6.yahoo.com. Currently,
the biggest roadblock we have is loadbalancer support (or, more
specificly, la
:: Isn't his point that y! could offer IPv6 e-mail in parallel to the
:: existing IPv4 service, putting the IPv6 machines in a subdomain
:: ipv6.yahoo.com, so that end users and networks who want to do it can
:: do so without bothering the others?
Not speaking directly for my employer (in
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:28:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As more and more cool IPv6 applications and services are becoming
> available, I converted the former FAQ entry we had on this into a more
> easily found/remembered page.
I was doing some searching and came across t
On Friday 01 June 2007, Vince Fuller wrote:
> If you think about it, the NAT approach actually offers the possibility of
> improved routing scalability: site multihomed with NATs connected to each
> of its providers could use topologically-significant (read "PA") global
> addresses on the NATs whi
13 matches
Mail list logo
