nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Confusion
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:14:07 -0500
So we deploy v6 addresses to clients, and save the remaining v4 addresses
for servers. Problem solved?
I have been suggesting that for a long time. However I am not suggesting IPv6-only to clients. See my other email on
this
from a minute or so ago. The way I see things going in the medium term: * IPv4 SP-NAT * IPv6 native to clients
+1 Wait, can I vote more than once? If so, +(more). <<SNIP>>
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Frank Bulk (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Bob Snyder (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 20)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Brandon Galbraith (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Steven Lisson (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Skywing (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion TJ (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Justin Shore (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 17)