[128295] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Jul 30 00:33:54 2010
To: grobe0ba@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:14:46 EDT."
<AANLkTi=Z0szP2ocYqNhpM7X1whWGdYscQh3AfTYcWyC5@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:33:13 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1280464393_4712P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:14:46 EDT, Atticus said:
> technology, and an inferior one at that. With IPSec compliance integrated
> into the protocol itself, and the hundreds of other benefits, why try to
> morph an old technology?
You *do* realize that IPv6 IPSec is the *exact same stuff* that's in IPv4, the
only difference is that a "compliant" IPv6 stack has to include it, as opposed
to the optional-but-all-major-OS-do-it status in IPv4, right?
Does anybody know of *any* products that support dual-stack and include
the IPv6 IPSec stuff but left the IPv4 IPSec stuff out? I've never actually seen one...
--==_Exmh_1280464393_4712P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMUlYJcC3lWbTT17ARAg3/AKCPku0avyrimU0lgovQFv0bWl3SpgCfWOCY
aZvag/0hvjyb4r7tei5Wm+o=
=uVqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1280464393_4712P--
