nanog mailing list archives

Re: moving to IPv6

From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:42:13 -0500

At 09:07 AM 11/1/97 -0600, Phil Howard wrote:


Something is thus needed to encourage customers to move into IPv6 even
when it is fully routeable.


[playing devil's advocate here]

Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the
Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is
a solution in search of a problem.

- paul

Current thread:

Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful NetSurfer (Oct 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Peter Evans (Nov 01)
  - Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 01)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful David R. Conrad (Nov 01)
  - moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Peter Galbavy (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Scott W Brim (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Vijay Gill (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Nikos Mouat (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Joe Shaw (Nov 03)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Dorian R. Kim (Nov 03)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
    - Re: moving to IPv6 Brett Frankenberger (Nov 01)

(Thread continues...)