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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Mon Oct 7 12:44:48 CEST 2019
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > Also for many years, we don't actually do it. And whoever it is that > decides not to do it, is certainly part of the RIPE community. The only > reason I can see is that at least that part of the RIPE community does > not consider IPv6-only + NAT64 to be "production ready". On Android/iOS I'd say it's production ready. On classic desktop OSes like MacOS, Windows and Linux it's not. The difference is the presence of widely available 464XLAT support. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- 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 ]