North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6, they should not notice it. And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner we can sort it out, if required. Regards, Jordi > De: Donald Stahl <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 -0400 (EDT) > Para: John Curran <jcurran@xxxxxxxxxx> > CC: <nanog@xxxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted > > >> At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying >> customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even >> if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and >> mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to >> use IPv6, it's getting their public-facing servers IPv6 >> reachable in addition to IPv4. > Exactly. > > So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users connected > via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the content is reachable. > The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start by > using different dns names for IPv6 enabled servers- mail.ipv6.yahoo.com or > whatever. Can anyone think of a reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 > services might cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users? > > -Don ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.