nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:49:59 -0700
Tony, On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Tony Li wrote:
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.
What were the reasons for rejection? Thanks, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mark Smith (Oct 16)