IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

2007-05-29 Thread Donald Stahl
We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the . So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive experience with their transitions. The biggest complaints so far have com

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

2007-05-29 Thread Martin Hannigan
So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive experience with >their transitions. Which ISP/NSP's? -M<

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

2007-05-30 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Nanog > Asunto: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) > > >> We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being >> didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the >

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

2007-05-30 Thread Donald Stahl
But now PI is there, no more restrictions in the path, so they can use "traditional" multihoming :-) If ARIN is going to assign /48's, and people are blocking anything longer than /32- well then that's a problem :) -Don

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

2007-05-30 Thread Kevin Loch
Donald Stahl wrote: If ARIN is going to assign /48's, and people are blocking anything longer than /32- well then that's a problem :) To be specific, ARIN is currently assigning up to /48 out of 2620::/23. I noticed that http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html has the following en

Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

2007-05-30 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
y 2007 10:12:54 -0400 (EDT) > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Nanog > Asunto: Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) > > >> But now PI is there, no more restrictions in the path, so they can use >> "traditional" multih