On Thu, October 4, 2007 6:49 am, Mike Leber wrote:
> As the data at http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi shows for the
> IPv6 and IPv4 nameserver tests, some of the time IPv6 connectivity is
> *faster* than IPv4 connectivity (66 out of 264 test cases), because of
> network topology differen
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Daniel Senie wrote:
> BTW, thanks for bringing this thread back to the question of creating
> demand for IPv6. There's plenty of anti-NAT activity on other
> threads. Some constructive discussion over ways to create incentives
> to deploy IPv6 is worthwhile. The most common
At 08:04 PM 10/3/2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only
killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought
about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality.
What occur
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only
killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about
this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What
occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in storage that would
provide such content:
ht
4 matches
Mail list logo
