NANOG 40 agenda posted

Tue May 29 13:50:59 UTC 2007

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.


> De: Donald Stahl <don at>
> Responder a: <owner-nanog at>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Para: John Curran <jcurran at>
> CC: <nanog at>
> 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- 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:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list