nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Tony Li <tony.li () tony li>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:27:01 -0700
I don't have an acceptable solution... however, I am getting tired of shim6 being pushed as *the* solution to site rehoming, when at best it's an end node rehoming solution.
Well, sorry. When we explored site multihoming (not rehoming) in the ways that you seem to suggest, it was effectively a set of coordinated NAT boxes around the periphery of the site. That was rejected quite quickly.
Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Susan Harris (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Vixie (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news David Meyer (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Mark Smith (Oct 17)
- And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) David Conrad (Oct 16)