[91578] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: small group seeks european IPv6 sceptic for good time
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Fri Aug 4 17:42:58 2006
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: Todd Underwood <todd-nanog@renesys.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <C33B0C7E-1CCD-46E8-A8C2-F2A9B477F242@virtualized.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:42:16 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--=-eHb2B/jRDcLbIi330TSt
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 13:42 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> > Afaik, the reasons for "Lack Of Demand for IPv6" consists of:
> [...]
> - Unwillingness of enterprise operators to pay the cost of migrating =20
> while remaining under the "you must renumber if you change providers" =20
> rule.
Ack, this falls IMHO under:
- No _accepted_ Multihoming Solution (BGP, shim6, etc)
The other reasons I listed are quite moot in most cases btw, the one
above is really the only important one that is really a showstopper for
most people. ohno, not again a long discussion about this, to make sure
that won't happen; I invite folks to do that fighting part on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multihoming
Edit and push comments in the Talk box where needed. That should make it
an easy place to find the pro's/con's of methods available and also
clearly index this. Don't vandalize boys and girls ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
(Who will now again get a bounce from postgateway@blogger.com cause I am
so nice to pgp sign my messages...)
--=-eHb2B/jRDcLbIi330TSt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iHUEABECADUFAkTTvzguFIAAAAAAFQAQcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JnamVy
b2VuQHVuZml4Lm9yZwAKCRApqihSMz58I3+jAKCgVdQdYJLjExmtxXO8fZ0mdJ9W
oQCfdHhwmv678r3a1+BfY5evxsuOMXY=
=oUVB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-eHb2B/jRDcLbIi330TSt--
