>> It's just they keep getting postponed because if other things which
>> are either more urgent or more important.
>> I'd not be surprised if IPv6 deployments suffer from the same issue quite
>> often.
>I think this is spot on; IPv6 never makes it to the top of the list for most
>organisation
Fully agree with Sander and others
I was shocked when I saw this document
Cheers
Silvia
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Sander Steffann
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Mai 2018 14:56
An: Jim Reid
Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net; JORDI PALET MARTINE
That would be a great panel discussion with some diverse speakers on the panel
:-)
Silvia
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Benedikt
Stockebrand
Gesendet: Montag, 25. April 2016 20:14
An: christian bretterhofer
Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Hi
I keep stumbling about that "recommendational wording" in RFC 2460 everytime I
teach it.
Couldn't we update RFC2460 and make this list a strict order?
I would want my firewall to notify me if the EHs in a packet do not follow the
list.
And limiting the number of possible EHs per packet migh
YES
:-)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Gert Doering
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2015 19:28
An: Benedikt Stockebrand
Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6
Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar
Hi,
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at
pe.net] Im Auftrag von Benedikt
Stockebrand
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2015 18:49
An: ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6
Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar
Hi Silvia and list,
Silvia Hagen writes:
> Hi Benedikt
>
> But in combination with 464XLAT it seems to do the
Hi Benedikt
But in combination with 464XLAT it seems to do the job well enough to support
millions of IPv6-only users for T-Mobile. And thereby allows them to deploy
v6-only at the edge, where address consumption is highest.
So maybe it would be good to differentiate a bit more and not throw ou
