nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +1100
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:36:50PM -0400, bzs () theworld com wrote:
On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 owen () delong com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > OK… Let’s talk about how? > > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address? A bit in the header or similar (version field) indicating extending addressing (what we call IPv6, or similar) is in use for this packet.
How does that allow the host that only understands 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with a host which sets this header bit? - Matt
Current thread:
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment John R. Levine (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 10)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Tony Finch (Oct 10)
- RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Kevin Menzel (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Forrest Christian (List Account) (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Stephen Satchell (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)