[168325] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sun Jan 19 15:53:05 2014
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:58:12 +0100."
<20140119.085812.74730056.sthaug@nethelp.no>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:51:40 -0500
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1390164700_4311P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:58:12 +0100, sthaug@nethelp.no said:
> Some of the other claims (e.g. more secure because IPsec is always
> available) are simply wrong - there is plenty of IPv6 equipment that
> doesn't offer IPsec.
Given the incredible market penetration of IPsec on the v4 side of
the fence, I guess we've found the true reason people aren't moving
to IPv6.
:)
--==_Exmh_1390164700_4311P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=Xy0E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1390164700_4311P--
