[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: [icann-candidates] IPv6
- To: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: [icann-candidates] IPv6
- From: lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
- Date: 4 Sep 2000 11:31:12 GMT
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- Newsgroups: iks.lists.icann.europe
- Organization: IKS GmbH Jena
- References: <200009022118.VAA08192@dg8fz.ampr.org> <4.3.2.7.0.20000903124411.00bf2d10@pop.free.fr>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
- User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX)
* Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>From: Bob Alberti <alberti@tcfreenet.org>
>> > What are candidate's thoughts regarding IPv6?
As written three weeks ago: BGP4 and IPv6 provider prefixes are limited. So
IPv6 does not solve the problem of provider attitude, but eases routing.
OTOH IPv6 dramatically reduce the number of official numbers given to office
or home computers due to the link/side local uni/anycast addresses and
autoconfiguration features. So IPv6 will serve the job much better than
IPv4, but cause other problems, because the primary provider prefixes are
limited and should mirror the current interconnection state, which will not
work in the long term.