At 09:13 AM 10/2/2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Please explain how you plan on getting rid of those protocol-aware
plugins
when IPv6 is widely deployed in environments with -stateful
firewalls-.
You just open up a hole in the firewall where
On 10/2/07, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote:
At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
At the internet
I've been messing around with parsing MRT format IPv6 BGP tables and saw
Randy's posts about deployment progress (or lack thereof), so I threw
together this site:
http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi
It gives a rough estimate of the percentage of:
* Networks that run IPv6 (currently
On 10/2/07, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
During early phase of free pool exhaustion, when you can't deliver
more IPv4 addresses to your customers you lose the customer to a
hosting provider who still has addresses left. So sorry. Those will be
some nasty years. Unless you're
4 matches
Mail list logo
