On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar <
ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no> wrote:
> We are deploying IPv6 (soon) and we are not buying IPv4 for postponing
> IPv6 rollout.
Obviously, if buying IPv4 addresses costs less and is higher quality than
something like MAP-E, then it makes sense to b
On 17.02.15, 16.19, "Ca By" mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Simply: buying ipv4 not only feeds the global "digital divide", it actively
hurts those that are trying to make a more inclusive global end-to-end
internet. Users dont know or care about ipv4. Great businesses dont make
decision o
On Monday, February 16, 2015, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Anfinsen, Ragnar <
> ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no
> > wrote:
>
>> >What does "IPv4 traffic lowers to...10%" mean here?
>> >
>> >Is this 10% meant to suggest that you'll wait until 90% of the
>> >Internet has IPv
Thus wrote Schmoll, Carsten (carsten.schm...@fokus.fraunhofer.de):
> * IPv4-only client in IPv4-only subnet running a web browser
If the client was of an ancient enough software that didn't know what IPv6
was (in contrast to a client that knows IPv6 but merely doesn't have it
active), you
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this
> situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and
> would improve e.g. internet gaming.
Right, and a gamer will want to use something t
