The Federal government considers fax secure. I have no idea the rationale behind it, but they do.
Applies to HIPAA also. On Nov 13, 2016 12:44 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > When FAX machines go away, we can start the 10 year countdown for IPv4 to > go away. > > > > How is FAX still a thing? But it is, it won’t die, and many businesses > absolutely need the ability to send FAXes, even if only to a couple places. > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy > /sarcasm > *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2016 12:33 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives? > > > > the interwebs is kind of an innovative industry. Genpop has gotten a taste > of ip6, they dont know what it is, but its new and must be better, so > theyll demand it. somebody will come up with a solution that gets adopted > that doesnt make anybody actually change anything but the world will appear > to be all ip6 > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote: > > Josh, I don't disagree with you, but didn't we have this discussion a > couple weeks ago? I remember something about issues with DNS64 not quite > working as expected. > > > > On 11/13/2016 10:49 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > *facepalm* I guess I have to spell it out. > > Run ipv6 internal with NAT64 and DNS64. Or DSLite, or just simply > dualstack with NAT444 aka CGNAT. > > We will have need for some ipv4 for the foreseeable future. > > Nothing is stopping you from running a fully ipv6 internal network > assuming you have the proper translation layers in place at either edge > (customer edge or transit edge). > > > > On Nov 13, 2016 10:40 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do you think the 4 stands for in NAT64? You cannot access IPv4 > resources with IPv4 addresses, even if you use IPv6 everywhere. > > Jared > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 5:59 PM > From: "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives? > NAT64 > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64 > > > On Nov 13, 2016 9:54 AM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected][mailto:chuck@ > wbmfg.com]> wrote: > > Nope, not if you are v6 and only v6. No way to get to bazillions of > servers that are on v4 still and will be for many moons. > You will have to have V4 involved somewhere forever. > > > > From: Josh Reynolds > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:32 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives? > > Of course you can. There's many ways to go about it. > > > On Nov 12, 2016 11:47 PM, "Sterling Jacobson" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Except that you literally cannot ‘move to IPv6’ and have happy clients yet. > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 7:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives? > > > Wow, didn't know that /24's were going for that high. I would move to IPv6 > as fast as I can! > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That's actually a pretty good price. > > > > On Nov 11, 2016 6:42 PM, "Dev" <[email protected]> wrote: > Are there any other alternatives than the ipv4auctions.com[http:// > ipv4auctions.com] style websites, which seem like highway robbery at > $3584 current bid for a /24? > > > > > > > > > -- > > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
