i love that you are always combative, it makes for great tv. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On May 29, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yeah, if it were LISP, they could probably handle IPv6. >> >> why can't they do v6 with any other encap? > > That’s not my point. >
sort of seemed like part of your point. >> the encap really doesn't matter at all to the underlying ip protocol >> used, or shouldn't... you decide at the entrance to the 'virtual >> network' that 'thingy is in virtual-network-5 and encap the packet... >> regardless of ip version of the thing you are encapsulating. > > Whatever encapsulation or other system they are using, clearly they can’t do > IPv6 for some reason because they outright refuse to even offer so much as a > verification that IPv6 is on any sort of roadmap or is at all likely to be > considered for deployment any time in the foreseeable future. > it's totally possible that they DO LISP and simply disable ipv6 for some other unspecified reason too, right? Maybe they are just on a jihad against larger ip numbers? or their keyboards have no colons? > So, my point wasn’t that LISP is the only encapsulation that supports IPv6. > Indeed, I didn’t even say that. What I said was that their apparent complete > inability to do IPv6 makes it unlikely that they are using an IPv6-capable > encapsulation system. Thus, it is unlikely they are using LISP. I only > referenced LISP because it was specifically mentioned by the poster to whom I > was responding. > > Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future. > you have so many words there already it's going to be fun fitting more in if I did try. have a swell weekend! >
