nanog mailing list archives

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () verizonbusiness com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:02:26 +0000 (GMT)




On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mark Tinka wrote:

On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:

Can anyone think of a
reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?


None that I can think of.


branding

Current thread:

RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- - - RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (May 30)
    - dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Patrick W. Gilmore (May 30)
    - Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Donald Stahl (May 30)
    - Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Merike Kaeo (May 30)
    - Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
    - Re: dual-stack simon (May 31)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch (May 30)
    - RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Mark Tinka (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
    - Testing IPv6 support on th client's machine (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 30)
    - Re: Testing IPv6 support on the client's machine (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 30)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (May 29)
    - Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)

(Thread continues...)