On 7/30/12 5:20 PM, "Michael Thomas" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 07/30/2012 05:10 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: If you see some advantage that solves the IPv4 address depletion (a big point of the transition to IPv6 exercise), then I've missed it. If so, please point out what I missed. No, not at all and not the point. I'm just of the mind that if we believe that v6 is really, really ready to go there shouldn't be any problem in substituting rfc1918 v4 space with v6 ULA space. If that modest change leads to trouble... Why would you try to create problems that don't yet exist? IPv6 isn't really, really ready to go until it arrives at your doorstep. Lee ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
