On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and
> carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course.
> Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs
> and having some
On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Philip Dorr wrote:
> You should accept the full v6 table, because some IPs may not,
> currently, be reachable via one of the carriers.
Definitely agreed here, and this is why we take full v6 tables. Especially
since one of our upstreams does not peer with at least o
OK. Looking forward to getting the lab up. Since I can handle the volume
I'll take both tables. At least in the lab. Looking forward to doing
some experiments with DNS just to see what all the fuss is about. Looks
like I'll need to order a Mac for the lab. No harm there. :)
-Hammer-
"I was a
On 2012-02-03 21:37 , -Hammer- wrote:
> Thanks Jeroen (and Ryan/Philip/Cameron/Justin/Etc.) for all the online
> and offline responses. That was fast. The struggle is that I'm having
> trouble seeing how/why it would matter other than potential latency on
> the IPv4 side. IPv6 conversations usually
Thanks Jeroen (and Ryan/Philip/Cameron/Justin/Etc.) for all the online
and offline responses. That was fast. The struggle is that I'm having
trouble seeing how/why it would matter other than potential latency on
the IPv4 side. IPv6 conversations usually involve taking the full table
when dealin
On 2012-02-03 21:10 , -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers
> and carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of
> course.
Dear "Hammer",
Welcome to the 21th century. 2012 is going to "the year" (they claim,
again ;) of IPv6
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and
> carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course.
> Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs
> and having some
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, -Hammer- wrote:
"If you have a specific route to a record but a less specific route to
an A record the potential is for the trip to take longer."
That was the premise of the thread. I swear I googled it for 20 minutes to
link before giving up. Anyway, can anyone who's
You should accept the full v6 table, because some IPs may not,
currently, be reachable via one of the carriers.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and
> carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with
On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and
> carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course.
> Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs
> and having some d
So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers
and carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of
course. Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the
initial designs and having some delivery questions with the carrier(s).
One interestin
11 matches
Mail list logo
