nanog mailing list archives
Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:12:06 -0700
On 10/21/10 2:00 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:Network operations content: Will "We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support IPv6" be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or hosting providers?First, it's not like the flag day is tomorrow. And then, I think if you're running SQL over the public Internet, you have bigger problems than whether or not you're going to be able to get v4 addressing and transit.
patches were available to do it as early as 2005 the work to do it in and official way was done back in 2008 leading up to the death of mysql6, it was in 5.5beta...
--msa
Current thread:
- ipv6 vs. LAMP Christopher McCrory (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Leo Bicknell (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Dan White (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Brandon Galbraith (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Oct 22)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Scott Reed (Oct 22)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Aaron Glenn (Oct 22)
- Message not available
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Oct 23)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Dan White (Oct 21)
- Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 21)