nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:30:30 +0900
William Herrin wrote:
I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory, would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator intervention.
I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P,
which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is
better.
Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
