[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bjoern Buerger
b.buerger at penguin.de
Fri Oct 11 12:03:23 CEST 2019
* Philip Homburg (pch-ripeml at u-1.phicoh.com) [191011 09:31]: > >> Troopers runs their main conference wifi with NAT64. If I'm not > >> mistaken, so does FOSDEM. > > > >True. > >FOSDEM was Dualstack till 2013 and then switched to IPv6-only in 2014. > > FOSDEM is similar to the RIPE meeting in that they have both a dual stack > SSID and a NAT64 SSID. > > The difference is that FOSDEM promotes the NAT64 SSID as the main one and > the dual stack SSID as the fallback. Yes. Which is exactly what we ask for . Just switch the default and see what happens. https://blogs.cisco.com/developer/fosdem-2019-a-new-view-from-the-noc Bjørn
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]