At 09:13 AM 10/2/2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Please explain how you plan on getting rid of those protocol-aware
plugins
when IPv6 is widely deployed in environments with -stateful
firewalls-.
You just open up a hole in the firewall where a
On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, a
> better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing
> out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got
> IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with
On 10/2/07, John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
> >eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
> >demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
>
> #1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhap
On 10/2/07, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote:
> > At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
> > eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
> > demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
>
> At th
I've been messing around with parsing MRT format IPv6 BGP tables and saw
Randy's posts about deployment progress (or lack thereof), so I threw
together this site:
http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi
It gives a rough estimate of the percentage of:
* Networks that run IPv6 (currently 3%).
On 10/2/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > During early phase of free pool exhaustion, when you can't deliver
> > more IPv4 addresses to your customers you lose the customer to a
> > hosting provider who still has addresses left. So sorry. Those will be
> > some nasty years. Unless you'
6 matches
Mail list logo
