nanog mailing list archives
Re: moving to IPv6
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 97 11:55 PST
if global name to 'address' resolution is desired, then the directory mechanism protocols, currently dns, need to be translated at address and/or name domain boundaries. some nats currently do this. are there other protocols/data which *must* be translated at boundaries? should kink such as cuseeme be left to die? randy
Current thread:
- Re: moving to IPv6, (continued)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Scott W Brim (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vijay Gill (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Nikos Mouat (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Joe Shaw (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Dorian R. Kim (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Brett Frankenberger (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jerry Scharf (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Pedro Marques (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 02)