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]/

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

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

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

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Sat Oct 20 07:29:04 CEST 2007

> Performance impacts when both hosts doing peer-to-peer (or 
> client-to-server) are using different types of IPv6 
> connectivity (example, native vs. 6to4 or Teredo, or Teredo 
> vs. 6to4). This is solved by deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays 
> in the ISPs, and is actually something inexpensive that ISPs 
> should do while they can't provide native access.

This is something that is described in more detail on ARIN's IPv6 wiki
targetted at ISPs:
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs

--Michael Dillon

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

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]