nanog mailing list archives
Re: absense of multicast deployment
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:42:40 +0100
On 3 mar 2006, at 22.02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
By any measure, multicast deployment is much larger than IPv6 deployment at present, and it is growing.I will be glad to argue the point to any length you might desire.
There are also operators that are deploying IPv6 just so that they can do multicast to their end-users without have to figure out how to run it through NAT. As was discussed at the last SANOG in some of the workshops.
- kurtis -
Current thread:
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne), (continued)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Geoff Huston (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) John Payne (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Tony Li (Mar 02)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) David Barak (Mar 02)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- absense of multicast deployment Joe Abley (Mar 03)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Marshall Eubanks (Mar 03)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment John Kristoff (Mar 03)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Edward B. DREGER (Mar 03)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Christian Kuhtz (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Per Heldal (Mar 06)