nanog mailing list archives
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:33:13 -0400
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:14:46 EDT, Atticus said:
technology, and an inferior one at that. With IPSec compliance integrated into the protocol itself, and the hundreds of other benefits, why try to morph an old technology?
You *do* realize that IPv6 IPSec is the *exact same stuff* that's in IPv4, the only difference is that a "compliant" IPv6 stack has to include it, as opposed to the optional-but-all-major-OS-do-it status in IPv4, right? Does anybody know of *any* products that support dual-stack and include the IPv6 IPSec stuff but left the IPv4 IPSec stuff out? I've never actually seen one...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? IPv3.com (Jul 24)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Steven King (Jul 24)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? William Pitcock (Jul 24)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Christopher Morrow (Jul 24)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Tom Limoncelli (Jul 29)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Atticus (Jul 29)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Atticus (Jul 29)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 29)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Atticus (Jul 29)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 29)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? William Pitcock (Jul 24)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Steven King (Jul 24)
- Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care? Matthew Palmer (Jul 30)