nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: David Freedman <david.freedman () uk clara net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:41:33 +0000
I think, for example, that Juniper is making a mistake by rolling v6 capability into a license that also includes BGP and ISIS on some platforms. Cisco is guilty of this as well. I am not necessarily advocating that v6 must be a basic feature on every new box; but I don't think it is correct to force customers to buy a license that includes a lot of other bells and whistles just to get v6. It could be a separate cost.
I mean, surely the intellectual property has been developed now, are the vendors /still/ paying developers off for this? hasn't most of the money already been spent?
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Kevin Oberman (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Stephen Sprunk (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jeff S Wheeler (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Freedman (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Dave Pooser (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Justin Shore (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Michael Thomas (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)