Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica

Thu Mar 20 22:07:40 UTC 2014

Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;)

On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster at mykolab.com> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
>
>Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
>enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
>
>- - ferg
>
>
>
>On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
>
>> Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of
>> the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big
>> deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So
>> unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I
>> don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it.
>> It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the
>> door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic.
>> 
>> My .02.
>> 
>> On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, "Jim Popovitch" <jimpop at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey
>>> <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
>>>> This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
>>>> 
>>>> You should too.
>>> 
>>> uhh, no.  It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with
>>> those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
>>> 
>>> -Jim P.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>- -- 
>Paul Ferguson
>VP Threat Intelligence, IID
>PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>iF4EAREIAAYFAlMrZekACgkQKJasdVTchbIXxwD+NLe6LUPJCbpKXGfevbPzAGWy
>BJu93FYH2Lfl9lMjTToA/2uGkqbI/ibO1eHH412gw4A6yLT7LLUoVK8yXwJiGRm1
>=mbB3
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----