In message <56157950.5040...@lugosys.com>, "Israel G. Lugo" writes:
>
> On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > So a /48 isnât about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856
> > devic
> es in every home, itâs about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask to
> use
> in del
On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856
> devices in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask
> to use in delegating addresses in a dynamic plug-and-play hierarchical
> topology that can evolve o
> (IPv6 ONLY insisting on manufacturers implementing 464XLAT is inferior
> in every way to dual stack,
There is one way it is superior; it rewards web and other content sites
that implement IPv6. Unlike dual stack, it applies pressure where it is
needed, on the IPv4-only sites. Grottiness can
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> So the problem you are suggesting we focus on is mostly a solved problem.
> Content Providers are progressing, modulo some serious laggards, notably
> Amazon and a few others.
>
>
newly released IOS9 and OSX El Capitan add some serious latenc
--- ma...@isc.org wrote:
From: Mark Andrews
:: Lots of homes don't even know they are running
:: IPv6 in parallel with IPv4. It is usually a
:: non-event.
--
That's for sure. I have been focusing a lot on work
lately instead of my home network an
Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org ] On Behalf
> Of Mark Andrews
> > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
> > To: Matthew Newton >
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
> >
> >
> > In mes
This still would have required updating every application, host, router,
everything. Just as much work as deploying IPv6 without many of the benefits.
No thanks,
Owen
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 14:18 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> There's no
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 13:45 , Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between
>> an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host.
>
> i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as foll
s when they start focusing on device
>> support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it working to
>> the people and we can figure out the rest later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog
e-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
>> To: Matthew Newton
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
>>
>>
>> In message <201
lto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
> To: Matthew Newton
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
>
>
> In message <20151001232613.gd123...@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew Newton
>
>> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between
>> an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host.
>
> i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows:
>
> "it was never possible to design a smooth transition and that's why we
> gave up on it."
>
> furthermor
On Friday, October 2, 2015, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> Why are some people here asserting that IPv6 failed when it looks like it
> is actually taking off pretty good right now?
>
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
>
> Jan 2013 about 1%
> Jan 2014 about 2.5%
> Jan 2015 about 5%
>
In message <560e9a20.7090...@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes:
> On 10/02/2015 07:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
> > I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on
> > device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it
> > working to the people and we
Why are some people here asserting that IPv6 failed when it looks like it
is actually taking off pretty good right now?
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
Jan 2013 about 1%
Jan 2014 about 2.5%
Jan 2015 about 5%
It is already past 9% so we will be at least at 10% by Jan 2016.
Loo
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:18 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger
>
> http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
>
> There's always a way.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
We could discuss IPv8 a
that's crazy. why would you want a simple way to boostrap more
addresses from what we have now?
you'll never make yourself into an internationally known ipvNEXT
advocate with engineering like that.
more advocacy. less engineering!
t
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
There's always a way.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside System
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake
I understand the comment, but I see some issues with it. The problem isn't that
IPv6 isn't backward-
On Fri 2015-Oct-02 09:43:40 -0700, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of
the doc.
--
Hugo
h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
also on TextSecure & RedPhone
From: Damian Menscher -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45
On Thu, Oct
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between
> an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host.
i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows:
"it was never possible to design a smooth transition and tha
From: Cryptographrix mailto:cryptograph...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM
To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>"
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: How to force rapi
Hardware upgrades aren’t difficulty inherent in the protocol.
Sure, everyone has to upgrade their hardware sometimes. Whether it’s to get
IPv6 capable hardware or to address some other need, periodic hardware upgrades
are a simple fact of life.
However, if TW put up IPv6 tomorrow as dual-stack,
t;
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> > Andrews Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
> > To: Matthew Newton
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 a
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 18:37 , Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented
> late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is
> trolling.
>
>
There are multiple translation systems and I’ve heard of most, if n
My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of
the doc.
--
Hugo
h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
also on TextSecure & RedPhone
From: Damian Menscher -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
>
>> On Thu 2015-O
Unfortunately, the files at the NANOG links you posted are not available,
but I think I get the premise of them from their summaries and what you're
trying to say - thank you for linking.
The discussion about CGN maintenance versus IPv6 adoption is important at
the NANOG level because of exactly w
On 10/2/15, 10:48 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Cryptographrix"
wrote:
>For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from
>providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers?
If they'd like to continue growing at something above churn rate, they
need additional IP addresses to give their new
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG <
> nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
>>> > it's just a ne
Why would they go "IPv6 only" if it costs them huge customer bases?
*** anecdote below ***
I hosted a discussion about IPv6 the other day to a room full of highly
technically-proficient millennials (being maybe in the older portion of
"millennial", myself - In spite of how I must sound, I'm actua
On 10/02/2015 07:48 AM, Cryptographrix wrote:
For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from
providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers?
Keep in mind that the net is now basically another broadcast medium.
Interesting you should use that phrase. IPv4 is the "AM band", whil
> support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it working to the
> people and we can figure out the rest later.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, October 01,
On 1 October 2015 at 16:12, Peter Beckman wrote:
> Then the teacher said "The toothpaste is the Internet. Once it's deployed,
> it is nearly impossible to put it back the way it was."*
>
> Beckman
>
> * OK, the teacher said "The toothpaste are your words. Once they come out,
> you can't put them b
On 10/02/2015 07:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on
device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it
working to the people and we can figure out the rest later.
The reality is that if customers can get it wron
the people and we can figure out the rest later.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
> To: Matthew Newton
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: How to f
working to the
people and we can figure out the rest later.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
To: Matthew Newton
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
In
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 05:58:59PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is
> answer this simple question:
>
> How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards
> compatible with existing IPv4 hosts requiring no software
> modification on
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:16:50 -, Todd Underwood said:
> yes. huh. funny about that, right? what do you think accounts for that?
> *why* do you think that *17* *years* later people are still just barely
> using this thing.
The fact that dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere is a Bad Idea
On 02/10/2015 04:52, Curtis Maurand wrote:
If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer
work. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the
shelf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to replace
the hardware. There
You make a point, but those ipv6 addresses would not be a available to my cpe.
I would agree that if your cpe is less than 5 years old, it should support
ipv6.
On October 2, 2015 12:30:56 AM ADT, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>In message <2bb18527-2f9c-4fee-95dd-3f89919a8...@xyonet.com>, Curtis
>Mau
On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
rest
> of the internet. it's unf
In message <2bb18527-2f9c-4fee-95dd-3f89919a8...@xyonet.com>, Curtis Maurand wr
ites:
> If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer wo
> rk. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the sh
> elf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support
If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer
work. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the
shelf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to replace
the hardware. There's no firmware update for it supporting ipv6
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>>
>> I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network.
>>
>> IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver.
>>
>
> Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use
> 464xlat instead
Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented
late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is
trolling.
In any case I'm giving up on that conversation. And this whole one. It goes
nowhere.
And this is why v6 is where it is: true believers.
:42:57
> To: Mark Andrews; Owen DeLong
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
>
> i'm still confused, to be honest.
>
> why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
>
> it's just a new addressi
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
> rest
> > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> > we're stuck wi
for all.
Regards,
Dovid
-Original Message-
From: Todd Underwood
Sender: "NANOG" Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:42:57
To: Mark Andrews; Owen DeLong
Cc:
Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
i'm still confused, to be honest.
why are we 'encouraging' 'e
I’m not at all tied up in a particular protocol.
Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is answer this
simple question:
How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards compatible with
existing
IPv4 hosts requiring no software modification on those hosts? Details
this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied up his
identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage you all not
to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at life,
so be your own person.
this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage. fee
OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 process.
Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in the path.
Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes.
So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bits of
address?
Further, what mechanism do
On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote:
I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network.
IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver.
Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use
464xlat instead of native dual-stack, as was originally envisioned for
the transition?
In message
, Todd Underwood writes:
>
> one interesting thing to note...
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade
> > now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer.
> >
> > We have had 17 yea
>
> That sounds like only using 6to4 addresses until the entire internet
supports IPv6.
> Unfortunately there were NEVER enough IPv4 addresses to actually do that.
We
> were effectively out of IPv4 addresses before we started.
>
People tend to forget that TCP/IP was not the only routing protocol
In message
, Todd
Underwood writes:
> I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the
> embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's
> naive and ignorant in a genius way.
>
> Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be
one interesting thing to note...
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade
> now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer.
>
> We have had 17 years to build up a universal IPv6 network. It
> should have
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Todd Underwood wrote:
> i'm still confused, to be honest.
>
> why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
>
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mis
In message <20151001232613.gd123...@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew Newton
writes:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but
I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the
embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's
naive and ignorant in a genius way.
Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be
properly done.
This was harder but not impossib
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
> learned
That reminds me of a story.
Once a teacher gave each of his students a tube of toothpaste. He said
"Squeeze all of the toothpaste out of the tube on to your desk." The kids
laughed and did it, making a giant mess and having a ball. When things
settled down, the teacher said "Now put all of the to
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 15:28 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, I think eventually the resid
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 08:28:13AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> writes:
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >> However, I think even
i'm still confused, to be honest.
why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say
In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start
> charging extra
> >> for IPv4 se
On 29 September 2015 at 13:37, David Hubbard
wrote:
> Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
> (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
> v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
> service would be v6-enabled before t
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>
> On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging
>> extra
>> for IPv4 service.
>
> ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers will
> mig
On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging
extra
for IPv4 service.
ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers
will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left with
unused IP
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
>>>
On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
netsh interface
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
>> server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
>>
>>netsh interface ipv6 install
>>
>
> If t
On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
> server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
>
> netsh interface ipv6 install
>
If the customer knew how to do that he wouldn't still be using Windows XP.
In message
, Baldur Norddahl writes:
> On 30 September 2015 at 21:41, McElearney, Kevin <
> kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>
> > This only helps 1/3 of the challenge. Even with most Comcast customers
> > able to obtain IPv6 today and over 70% provisioned with IPv6, less than
> > 20%
On 30 September 2015 at 21:41, McElearney, Kevin <
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> This only helps 1/3 of the challenge. Even with most Comcast customers
> able to obtain IPv6 today and over 70% provisioned with IPv6, less than
> 20% of the traffic is IPv6. There is still a need to
On 9/29/15, 4:37 PM, "David Hubbard" wrote:
>Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
>(google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
>v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
>service would be v6-enabled before the end of t
In a message written on Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 04:37:19PM -0400, David Hubbard
wrote:
> Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
> (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
> v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
> serv
With Netflix people might just dump the service, however, if you change all the
social diarrhea sites (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc...) over to v6 only
overnight, you either force the net to adopt v6 or people to talk to each
other. Either way, it's a win-win.
-Original Message-
Fr
s/creating an/exacerbating the/
Owen
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 22:42 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> Ban the selling of IPv4 only home routers. The continued sale of
> these devices is just creating a e-waste problem.
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>
On 29/Sep/15 22:55, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I think he means new releases are v6 for the first 48 hours...then trickle
> to v4. Which means that people wanting to see that new release urgently
> would have to wait two days.
>
> Netflix is definitely not the service to do that. Hulu, Amazon or HB
Ban the selling of IPv4 only home routers. The continued sale of
these devices is just creating a e-waste problem.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Op 29-09-15 om 22:37 schreef David Hubbard:
> Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
> (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
> v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
> service would be v6-enabled before the end o
another good idea is to design a migration path to ipv6 so that people
using hte internet can also use the ipv6-internet.
that would be cool.
we should probably think about some migration path other than the pretty
obviously implausible "dual stack" silliness before this stuff actually
becomes a
> On 29 Sep 2015, at 20:48 , Ca By wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Hubbard <
> dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
>
>> Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
>> (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
>> v6-only for the
I think he means new releases are v6 for the first 48 hours...then trickle
to v4. Which means that people wanting to see that new release urgently
would have to wait two days.
Netflix is definitely not the service to do that. Hulu, Amazon or HBO GO
maybe. Netflix content tends to be pretty old
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Hubbard <
dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
> Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
> (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
> v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
> s
85 matches
Mail list logo
