Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:58:37 -0700 > Para: John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Igor Gashinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Asunto: Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted > >

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: > Asunto: Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted > > What I guess have not been clear on is the fact that loadbalancers for > many people are an integral (and required) part of the *architecture* > (and not just somet

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

william(at)elan.net wrote: . I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be dead in the water without load balancers. Citrix got their act together and shipped 8.0 with v6 vips on the front talking to v4 servers on the backend. While I understand that some place may want to put pol

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, matthew zeier wrote: John Curran wrote: Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for the traditional router crowd. Net result is there hasn't been much IPv6 attention in that market... I suppose,

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

John Curran wrote: Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for the traditional router crowd. Net result is there hasn't been much IPv6 attention in that market... I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

At 7:16 PM -0400 6/3/07, Igor Gashinsky wrote: >Again, we are working on it, Good to know... >it is much harder then it seems, my views are >my own, I'm not in any way speaking for my employer, ... Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding in ISP's backbones and it hasn't bee

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

> Fecha: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:01:57 +0100 :: > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :: > Conversación: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted :: > Asunto: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted :: > :: > :: > :: >> Without naming any vendors, quite a

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

> De: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:01:57 +0100 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Conversación: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted > Asunto: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted >