[168306] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Sat Jan 18 13:55:56 2014
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:55:33 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: John van Oppen <jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us>,
"'mark.tinka@seacom.mu'" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE7632941D00C@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--Rqp41pQRm7RwwUq88vaS4dux5246kHEC4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1/18/14, 10:30 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
> This is exactly what pushed us into 6PE... it was the only way to mak=
e performance similar to v4 from a routing standpoint.
This statement is a bit facile... What platform are you referring to?
> John @ AS11404
>=20
>=20
--Rqp41pQRm7RwwUq88vaS4dux5246kHEC4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlLaziUACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrKi3wCcDmtKmGfIrInA5HWKgmJDZS2d
0pgAmwd7C3m/XySYuflL6q93j8NHEaao
=FIix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Rqp41pQRm7RwwUq88vaS4dux5246kHEC4--
