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] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bjoern Buerger
b.buerger at penguin.de
Fri Oct 4 15:53:24 CEST 2019
Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. But I think you just got that slightly wrong: Am Fri, 04 Oct 2019 schrieb Tim Chown: > I think it boils down to > a) deploy IPv6 where it makes sense for you to do so. > b) remove IPv4 where it makes sense for you to do so. Let me correct that for you: a) deploy IPv6 everywhere. Otherwise you are not reaching the whole internet. There are networks out there, which you are currently missing. If you think otherwise, drop me a note at bbu at penguin.de b) Hide all your legacy cruft behind some layers of NAT or Dualstack Application Proxies, if it please you and remove IPv4 where it makes sense for you to do so. Cheers, Bjørn
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]