nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 01:55:21 +1100
In message <p2offcec29f1004030657r97e6b8l426be7d10252d64 () mail gmail com>, jim d eleskie writes:
James, I agree with you concern, and as someone else said the devil is in the details, you points are something that would need to be looked at if enough people though we should move forward and look at an idea like this, which I think we should, but not sure if enough traffic to start down that road yet. If we do though, this is the kind of input we'd need. -jim
This sort of thing was thought of and *rejected* over a decade ago. You will still have ALL the reachability problems from legacy machines that you have with IPv4 + IPv6. Your Windows 95 machine wouldn't be able to reach most of the Internet as it would be under this model. You still need to upgrade all the application and other tools. There never was a magic wand that could fix this. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Franck Martin (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) Lee Howard (Apr 07)
- Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) David Conrad (Apr 09)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Smith (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 James Hess (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Andrews (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Jim Burwell (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Steven Bellovin (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Jim Burwell (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Bill Bogstad (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Dan White (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 02)