[75594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Nov 18 10:29:48 2004
To: Christian Kuhtz <christian.kuhtz@BELLSOUTH.COM>
Cc: Mike Leber <mleber@he.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:18:22 EST."
<BDC2195E.B1F8%christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:29:10 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_927617679P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:18:22 EST, Christian Kuhtz said:
> So, again, somebody says they're selling it.. And without wanting to sound
> like a flame.. what volume of native, non-tunnel IPv6 traffic do you see and
> what applications is it? Could you throw those of us a bone who are still
> scratching our heads as to what business cases support this? ;)
The point is that Randy was wrong when he said there weren't any v6 ISPs
in 2002, because at least some were doing it a year before that.
For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF list
in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many places' total
bandwidth usage. So why don't we all just cut *THAT* off because there's
no business case to support *THAT* either? :)
--==_Exmh_927617679P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFBnL/FcC3lWbTT17ARArpZAKC94dkDuSrqpcN9GESvVZloFQ6R2gCgpexa
U68l8nkF+fv8oPH8us0efnA=
=nlyU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_927617679P--
