nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Irony.
From: Yucong Sun <sunyucong () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 23:53:54 +0800
I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass? IMHO it only helps high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of their big box with advanced IPv6 license. It has absolutely no help with the long tail crowd, which really need more push and incentive to support ipv6. Cheers.
Current thread:
- IPv6 Irony. Donn Lasher (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Ca By (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Max Tulyev (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Stephen Satchell (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Max Tulyev (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Paul S. (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Yucong Sun (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Ca By (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Max Tulyev (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Rinse Kloek (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Sander Steffann (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Ca By (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Masataka Ohta (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Mark Andrews (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Masataka Ohta (Oct 21)
- RE: IPv6 Irony. Nicholas Warren (Oct 22)
- RE: IPv6 Irony. Nicholas Warren (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Hugo Slabbert (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Masataka Ohta (Oct 22)