This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Thu Oct 18 21:26:19 CEST 2007

* michael dillon:

>> This all comes down to economics.  Adding IPv6 capabilities 
>> to CPE access devices costs money, and CPE devices are often 
>> chosen purely on the basis of cost alone.  Ergo, IPv6 
>> capability is bad for business, if you manufacture CPE boxen.
>
> IPv6 is a software upgrade.

Including IPsec?  Doubt it, some of the CPUs barely manage to run PPPoE.

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]