[ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael Oghia
mike.oghia at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 17:33:38 CEST 2016
Yes! Sorry about that Nick. Rob already clarified. -Michael On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Michael Oghia wrote: > > Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that. > > you're misunderstanding completely! It means that ipv6 is considered to > be of the same importance as ipv4 in the ixp world from the point of > view of passing production traffic over the ixp fabric. As far as the > IXP world is concerned, this is an excellent situation to be in. > > Nick > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20161020/18e663c0/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]