|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:36:14 -0600 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13A58@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 2/11/2011 3:31 PM, George Bonser wrote: > "IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a > range of new services and improved user experiences." > > Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing. > It isn't. Reread what they wrote. IPv6 is "foundational" to the next-generation Internet. If it's not, then IETF should have added 96 bits and left the rest of it alone. I can't blame Cisco for making sure how they implement the linksys is appropriate for the long term. It's important that they get certain things right, as future improvements of the Internet DO depend on IPv6 being functional. Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |