nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 23:35:48 +0900
Mans Nilsson wrote: Supplying context you omit: >>> No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. >> Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard?
It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason.
> IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed. If you mean ATM is deployable and was deployed, yes, you are right. So? >> After finding that, I, as a theorist, totally abandoned IPv6. > You gave up, based on false conclusions. Sorry, but I'm not interested in how you falsely recognize the real world of practical and theoretical internetworking. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matthew Walster (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Francis Booth via NANOG (Nov 23)
- Re: fun with TLDs and captive portals was, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Levine (Nov 23)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Chris Adams (Nov 20)
- Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jim (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public james.cutler () consultant com (Nov 20)
- RE: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Richard Irving (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 21)