[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Fri Nov 28 11:07:10 CET 2014
On 2014-11-24 03:37, Randy Bush wrote: >> Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >>> Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY >>> (as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever >>> network. >> ... even if stated again and again, it simply is not true. Please stop >> these claims, they may be even more detrimental to IPv6 deployment, if >> read by some people not having "real data" and/or first-hand >> experience. > > perhaps a pointer to these real data would make your point Take a look at e.g. http://www.vix.at/vix_participants.html?&no_cache=1&L=1, the column "IPv6 Routeserver activated". I presume it wouldn't be useful to have that configured, unless there is deployment in these ASNs. Wilfried > randy >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]