nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:40:53 -0700
On Oct 15, 2005, at 9:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
but when similar things were proposedat other meetings, somebody always said "no! we have to have end-to- end,and if we'd wanted nat-around-every-net we'd've stuck with IPv4."
Hmm. Is VJ compression considered a violation of the "end-to-end" principle? Or perhaps I misunderstand (yet again). Rgds, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Susan Harris (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Vixie (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news David Meyer (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Mark Smith (Oct 17)
- And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) David Conrad (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Randy Bush (Oct 16)