nanog mailing list archives
Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE
From: Brock Tice <brock () bmwl co>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:19:03 -0600
On 10/11/2018 09:39 PM, Tom Ammon wrote:
What did you experience with the dual-stack/CGN approach that keeps you from recommending it?
Nothing, sorry if my writing was confusing. It was the 464XLAT that I don't recommend at this time, lack of vendor support by the brands we currently use (especially Mikrotik and Ubiquiti) was the main issue.
Current thread:
- new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Tom Ammon (Oct 09)
- Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Daniel Corbe (Oct 09)
- Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Oct 09)
- RE: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Philip Loenneker (Oct 10)
- Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Ca By (Oct 10)
- Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Brock Tice (Oct 10)
- Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Tom Ammon (Oct 11)
- RE: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Philip Loenneker (Oct 11)
- RE: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Aaron Gould (Oct 12)
- Re: new(ish) ipv6 transition tech status on CPE Brock Tice (Oct 12)