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 ]
Jens Link
lists at quux.de
Wed Oct 9 11:16:14 CEST 2019
Philip Homburg <pch-ripeml at u-1.phicoh.com> writes: > NAT64 is also not attractive from a backward compatibility point of view: At the last meeting Enno talked[1] about plans for a large wireless deployment running v6 only + NAT64 / DNS64. As I know which "Supermarket" Enno is talking about: If this would be deployed in the next 6 month many participants of RIPE 80 would use such a network. Jens [1] https://ripe78.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/117-RIPE78_ERNW_IPv6_Hotspots.pdf -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Delbrueckstr. 41 | 12051 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink at quux.de | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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 ]