nanog mailing list archives
Re: DoD IP Space
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:44:19 -0800
On Jan 22, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu> wrote: And how would you define "fully implement v6", anyhow?
I would define it this way: if something can be done using IPv4, it has an obvious IPv6 counterpart that is usable by the same community to the extent that the community is itself able to use such. Web sites, mail, bandwidth, routing, ROAs, firewalls with appropriate rules, and so on. The problem with my suggested wording is that if one turns IPv4 off, by implication someone turns IPv6 off, and I don't intend that. So reword to make IPv6 the surviving service in some way, and I think you're pretty much there.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Current thread:
- Re: DoD IP Space, (continued)
- Re: DoD IP Space Fred Baker (Feb 15)
- Re: DoD IP Space Joe Loiacono (Feb 15)
- Re: DoD IP Space Gary Buhrmaster (Feb 15)
- Re: DoD IP Space bzs (Feb 15)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Andrews (Feb 15)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Andrews (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Eric Kuhnke (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Sabri Berisha (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Owen DeLong (Feb 12)
- Re: DoD IP Space Izaac (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space William Herrin (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Izaac (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space William Herrin (Feb 11)
- Re: DoD IP Space Mark Tinka (Feb 12)
- Re: DoD IP Space scott (Feb 13)