nanog mailing list archives
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: JAKO Andras <jako.andras () eik bme hu>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:10:31 +0200 (CEST)
Since there are no features that cannot be had with IPv4 this only
Scalable interdomain multicast? Think of the MSDP-mess in IPv4 vs embedded RP in IPv6. I know, I know, this won't drive IPv6 deployment, but just for the record, this is something solved with v6 and missing with v4. Maybe it'll be interesting sometime. Andras
Current thread:
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) JAKO Andras (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Leigh Porter (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Phil Regnauld (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Phil Regnauld (Oct 01)