Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* = not even joking, but could somebody set up a free IPv6 p0rn service;
that should considerably raise the demand for IPv6 around the globe. I
have some nice statistics from users from a ce
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* = not even joking, but could somebody set up a free IPv6 p0rn service;
>that should considerably raise the demand for IPv6 around the globe. I
>have some nice statistics from users from a certain asian ISP who are
>lookin
> > Afaik, the reasons for "Lack Of Demand for IPv6"
> consists of: [...]
> - Unwillingness of enterprise operators to pay the cost of
> migrating while remaining under the "you must renumber
> if you change providers" rule.
yes.
> - No _accepted_ Multihoming Solution
yes.
scott
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 13:42 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> > Afaik, the reasons for "Lack Of Demand for IPv6" consists of:
> [...]
> - Unwillingness of enterprise operators to pay the cost of migrating
> while remaining under the "you must renumber if you change providers"
> rule.
Ack, this fall
Afaik, the reasons for "Lack Of Demand for IPv6" consists of:
[...]
- Unwillingness of enterprise operators to pay the cost of migrating
while remaining under the "you must renumber if you change providers"
rule.
Rgds,
-drc
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 14:48 -0400, Todd Underwood wrote:
> folx,
>
> along with several others i've been putting together a panel for
> ripe/nanog about ipv6. the core contention is that there is a large,
> unrepresented body of operators who are sceptical as to the need for
> IPv6, see no market
folx,
along with several others i've been putting together a panel for
ripe/nanog about ipv6. the core contention is that there is a large,
unrepresented body of operators who are sceptical as to the need for
IPv6, see no market demand, see no problem it solves and see no
justification for the c
