Re: IPV4 to IPv6 migration
Alain Durand <alain_durand-aUJzA63xOnoL9wKPcNvCOAC/[email protected]> Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:55:18 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C46B3606.11F43%[email protected]> |
On 6/3/08 5:51 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: > But it's also certainly true that many applications don't > contain this logic, and do need to be manually restarted after > an IP(v6) prefix becomes unreachable. I'm sorry, but I don't see > how that is worse than what we live with today, with unpredictable > application failures due to loss of NAT state. At least IPv6 > prefix changes can be planned, and announced to users like any > other planned maintenance. > > Brian No worse, no better. IPv6: 96 more bits, no magic... But we *need* those bits! - Alain. _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6