Re: "IETF servers aren't for testing"

[shogunx <shogunx at sleekfreak.ath.cx>]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Kevin Loch wrote:

a simple dual stack router upstream or hrizontally placed from the host in
question solves the problem.  let me know if my assistence is necessary.
i will build one remotely if necessary.

Scott

> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > The problem here seems to be more the fact that, in the US, getting IPv6
> > connectivity can be quite tiresome. Cogent, the current IPv4 upstream,
> > doesn't do IPv6 (they have 2001:500:2::/48) for instance. UUnet could
> > maybe do IPv6. Maybe the secretariat would wants to try out some tunnels?
>
> If connectivity means a colocated server with IPv4 and IPv6 service,
> that can easially be found in the US.  Finding an IPv6 ISP POP in
> an arbitrary local town is quite a bit more difficult.
>
> If these are just dedicated/colocated servers and IPv6 is a requirement,
> move them to a hosting company that supports IPv6. If you are not
> willing to take your business elsewhere then why should your current
> hosts offer it?
>
> - Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf