David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
> had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
>
> Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
> Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
>
> No idea how well they support IPv6...
Looked at the manual
Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other mode would be to set up mail.ipv6.yahoo.com and have
> customers use that for whatever protocol they send/receive mail with,
> and not point an MX at an for the time being.
Actually I would do it the other way around, adding to th
Krichbaum, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw this question a while ago but no (maybe one) answers. Who does
> have IPv6 in production today. Of the fixedorbit.com top ten for
> example?
>
> 701 (MCI) - ?
Yes, although I don't know whether tunneled or not. I see 16 prefixes
through 701. 1
Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
>> > the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
>> ...
>>
>> IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
> OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now.
Which works pretty w
On 2006-02-13, Matthew Petach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wes George, Rob Rackell hat, couldn't be here
> due to weather. Pro v6, looking at it with skepticism.
> Sprint close to center of v6 world.
> 200pps on v6 network.
Uhm, excuse me, is something wrong with my calendar and we had Apr 1st
On 2005-10-15, Nicholas Suan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm told there are 6to4 relays seeing in excess of 100mbps. Not bursts.
>>Can you imagine trying to handle 100mbps "internet mix" traffic process
>>switched? :-Z Not even talking about the peaks.
> They may be handling 100mbps but they als
