|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:04:13 +0200 From: Graham Beneke <graham@apolix.co.za> To: nanog@nanog.org In-Reply-To: <33530604.6.1283204829965.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@apolix.co.za Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 30/08/2010 23:47, Franck Martin wrote: > found it: > > http://www.bgpmon.net/6to4.php?week=4 > > Not what I call a big list, considering... The list seems to be showing relays that announce both the IPv4 and the IPv6 anycast prefixes. I have noticed a number of deployments that announce the (in)famous IPv4 prefix and then consider their deployment complete. I suspect that there is a lack of 2002::/16 announcements and this would be contributing to the regular problems with return paths. Obviously the IPv6 content networks benefit the most from having a relay translating back to IPv4. Anyone have experience with this? -- Graham Beneke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |