nanog mailing list archives
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:34:36 -1000
I know this very well. But I'm listening. We are already trying to do something about nat-pt. What else would you see as a priority?
give v6 a break and stop complicating it further while we figure out how the heck to deploy it. though maybe the old benchmark/testing stuff could be revived to do forwarding and control plane performance testing so we can get some honesty into the vendor game. randy
Current thread:
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6), (continued)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Steven M. Bellovin (Sep 27)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Jeroen Massar (Sep 28)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Eliot Lear (Sep 28)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Prior (Sep 30)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Sep 30)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Prior (Sep 30)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Sep 30)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Jari Arkko (Sep 27)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Sep 27)
- Re: Fw: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 26)