|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org In-Reply-To: <20150713152551.18531.qmail@ary.lan> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:31:03 -0400 From: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org This is actually a good idea. Roll out an IPV6 only network and only pass out an IPV4 address if it's needed based on actual traffic. On Jul 13, 2015 11:27 AM, "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > In article <CAP032TteiL3=k= > vs-KEdGU276fWGXqn1J9jmORLq8sW4xPE-Wg@mail.gmail.com> you write: > >http://www.google.com/patents/US20130254423 > > This is not a patent. It is a patent application. Most applications > do not turn into patents, or at least not with all of the claims > included. > > If you look at the claims, which are what matter, this is for a rather > specific hack in a broadband router which assigns a v4 address on the > fly when a DNS lookup from behind the router returns a result that > suggests that v4 traffic will happen, presumably by returning an A > record. > > I can't imagine how anyone would misread this as a patent on IPv6. > > R's, > John >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |