I was thinking the same thing, and am still wondering why/how using an
ipv6 "tunnel" would result in a "half assed" implementation.
admittedly, i'm not a pfsense dev, and they can say what they like *shrug*
Beat Siegenthaler wrote:
Scott Ullrich wrote:
Chris summed this up quite well but we cannot just half ass implement
IPv6. It requires a real testing environment and a lot of work to
implement it fully vs. doing it for just "most of us" needs.
I think we all appreciate the quality oriented development.
But for me is a tunneled IPv6 not more "half ass" than a IPv4-wan over
PPoE ;-) Even Cisco and Checkpoint are starting seldom with fully
implementations of new gadgets.... But they start...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
*Leon Strong *| Technical Engineer
*Office:* +64 9 302 0515 (ext 513) *Fax:* +64 9 302 0518
*Mobile:* +64 211 891 873 *Freephone:* 0800 SMX SMX (769 769)
Level 11, 290 Queen Street, Auckland, New Zealand | SMX Ltd | smx.co.nz
<http://smx.co.nz>
SMX | Business Email Specialists
The information contained in this email and any attachments is
confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient then you must not use, disseminate, distribute or
copy any information
contained in this email or any attachments. If you have received this
email in error or you
are not the originally intended recipient please contact SMX immediately
and destroy this email.
