[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sat Apr 23 22:07:49 CEST 2016
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016, at 04:53, Randy Bush wrote: > > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > > solution is not working yet" situation. > > what solution is not working for you? Commercially, IPv6 does not work. IPv4 does, it's even required. Companies (non-IT ones) don't care about IPv6 yet. They just want their fixed IPv4 or IPv4 block (/29 and up) for their internet connections - can't provide it, somebody else (usually big/old player) can. > randy, running v6 commercially since '97 Like selling IPv6-based services with no or degraded IPv4 ?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]