[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Backwards compatability with existing IPv6 [was: Re: Networklayer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]]
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Backwards compatability with existing IPv6 [was: Re: Networklayer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]]
- From: Vijay Gill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:53:42 -0400
- Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:56:07 -0700
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > Considering that there virtualy is NO install base of IPv6, we
> > can assume anything.
> This is a point we'll discuss for a long time I'm sure, but I believe
> it is impractical to assume there is no installed base and thus we are
> free to do anything. The reality is that there are IPv6 products (for
To paraphrase Mike O'Dell - Installed base? What installed base?
If the take rate of v6 starts to approach that of historical growth rate
of v4, then what installed base is a very valid question to ask. 100x
todays v6 installed base is ~ 4 doublings and thats a year worth of growth
in V4 space.