> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, then why bother migrating to IPv6
> at all? What have you gained?
Early presence on the market.
Michel.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrativ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On tisdag, sep 23, 2003, at 07:03 Europe/Stockholm, Michel Py wrote:
> I have to say that given the recent trends and developments, I am now
> on
> the fence WRT joining the camp that says that NAT is unavoidable for v6
> so we might as well make it
On dinsdag, sep 23, 2003, at 07:03 Europe/Amsterdam, Michel Py wrote:
I don't think that the ability to have multiple servers on the same
port
is significant enough to trigger a migration; there would need to be a
more significant change. Bottom line is that on my single IP at home, I
host all th
Erik,
> Erik Nordmark wrote:
> It isn't clear to me at what point the pain caused by NAT in
> different cases will be high enough to motivate a transition
> to some different technology, or whether there must be new
> capabilities (such as the ability to have multiple servers
> at the same port nu
