nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 13:17:04 -0700
On 3/18/22 12:54 PM, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
We weren't part of the wars. What I saw was what eventually became ipv6 and I remember talking to one of my coworkers about how hard he thought it would be to implement. He concurred that he didn't think it would be any big deal. One of our big issues is that we didn't have anybody to interop with, that and nobody was asking for it unlike v4 features.Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> writes:I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To me back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address.Then I suppose, like me, you were in favor of the TUBA proposal? :)
Mike
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported Dave Bell (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported Matthew Huff (Mar 17)
- RE: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 17)
- Re: V6 still not supported borg (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Nathan Angelacos (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported surfer (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Curran (Mar 21)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Curran (Mar 21)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Curran (Mar 22)
- Re: V6 still not supported Randy Bush (Mar 22)
