This is all sort of a juggling exercise.... I have roughly ~100 items on the feature/bug list, which didn't make it into the original base unit. Some are small nitpicky fixes and/or cosmetic issues like 'fix scaling of logo on small screens'. Others are feature adds. I'm in the process of ordering the feature adds, so that important items are prioritized.
https:// as an example has been pushed toward the bottom of the list (but definitely not on the shouldn't do unless I find a use case list). IPv6 is somewhat higher at this point. Don't be surprised to see a few more of these type of 'informal surveys' over the next few days as I work through this list. On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > for those of who do use its a yes or +1 > but for the ones who dont then no > :} > > > On 10/19/2017 06:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: > > So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device management, I > figured I'd ask about the following: > > How about IPv6? It's on my list as well to look at... Does anyone see > any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of IPv4, at > least in the near term? > > -- > *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* > Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 > [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> > <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> > > > -- > -- *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
