nanog mailing list archives
RE: North America not interested in IP V6
From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett () msmgmt com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:21:52 -0400
Jack Bates Wrote:
In the US, the pipe is limited in any number of ways in attempts to limit how many people share their broadband with their neighbor at a reduced rate. Another issue is that handing out IP addresses to the home at this point is foolish. User's, in general, can't protect themselves.
EXACTLY-- I wish there was some kind of regulatory something or other that made a cable/dsl router mandatory... HMMM -- Wonder is Lieberman would sponsor a bill? ;) Jim
Current thread:
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Jack Bates (Aug 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: North America not interested in IP V6 sthaug (Aug 01)
- RE: North America not interested in IP V6 McBurnett, Jim (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Scott Francis (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 William Warren (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Scott Francis (Aug 04)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Scott Francis (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Michael . Dillon (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Marshall Eubanks (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 E.B. Dreger (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Niels Bakker (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Ray Wong (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)