Yes, there is a full config on the wiki and some comments I wrote as I
did the implementation.
Butch's configuration is there.
HE also has some of the configuration for MT on their website.
On 1/16/2011 12:05 AM, Butch Evans wrote:
On 01/13/2011 05:54 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
No, I'm not offended
At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote:
On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really.
Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.
Obviously we have different opinions.
If one of
On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote:
On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really.
Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1999-09-10/
I think I missed Friday.
While I agree v6 is a crap pile, it also is going to be implemented
and far sooner then some people think. Not that my source is all
authoritative
on the subject, it was a conversation with a cellular tech support.
His claim is
I must have missed something along the way. I keep seeing postings here
that IPv6 is worthless, yet when I read the posts on NANOG, ARIN and
IETF mail lists, it is a viable and in production protocol. So, would
some one please post the *facts *that make IPv6 so bad.
On 1/16/2011 2:51 PM,
It is a protocol wonk holy war :-)
IPv6 is worse
OSI is better
Using the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
Does not matter to me because I have customers that need end-to-end
connectivity to China and mobile data in the US (that is going native
v6 with v4 NAT) so I'm
On 01/16/2011 02:24 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
If there really does turn out to be *meaningful* content that can
*only* be reached via v6, then gateways will exist. One form or other
of a 4-to-6-NAT. Name-based services will help; using an IP address
in the application layer is a capital-M
I'm not going to tie up this list with a long protocol war, since
this isn't the forum, but I'll answer a few questions. You can see
some more stuff on my web site and especially the Pouzin Society
site, but there will be more coming out later.
At 1/16/2011 03:36 PM, JeromieR wrote:
I must
Matt, I commend your thoughts, and how you chose to write them. I always
admire people who speak clearly, but from the heart.
I would like to add something, or perhaps just explain why I think this
industry will never become the domain of a few large players. Our industry
requires a
