Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:22:38 -0500


Thus spake "David Barak" <thegameiam () yahoo com>
--- Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org> wrote:
Nearly every customer of mine has required IPv6 in
their RFPs for over a
year, but not a single one has turned it on even for
testing.

Right, but it means that more network providers are
having to offer some type of solution.  This will
enable Windows (or whatever) to have it on by default
and actually have it work.

We can hope.

Vendor C's issues with v6 are a problem, but they're
not the only provider of core or edge gear...
Also, even though their forwarding mechanisa are not
completely functional, they do pass packets, so it'll
work, just not be optimized.

When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I don't think "not
completely functional" is an adequate description.  To me, that falls into
the "not supported" category.

S


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault