<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IPv6 – What’s New</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.cisco.com/security/ipv6-whats-new/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.cisco.com/security/ipv6-whats-new/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:03:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Klein</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cisco.com/security/ipv6-whats-new/#comment-108389</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Klein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cisco.com/?p=19276#comment-108389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Myth #1, Cisco support IPv6 on all products, including Linksys, prior to the IPv4 exhaustion day.  Sorry Tony and Earl, it&#039;s not your fault, it was a business decision made at the top to delay many IPv6 product offerings, be it security, interoperability, VOIP, etc.

Myth #2, Other product vendors support IPv6.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Myth #1, Cisco support IPv6 on all products, including Linksys, prior to the IPv4 exhaustion day.  Sorry Tony and Earl, it&#8217;s not your fault, it was a business decision made at the top to delay many IPv6 product offerings, be it security, interoperability, VOIP, etc.</p>
<p>Myth #2, Other product vendors support IPv6.
<p class="comment-like"><img class="comment-like-btn" title="Vote" onclick="cl_like_this('http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php',108389)" src="http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-content/plugins/comments-likes/images/like.png" />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span id="comment-like-cnt-108389">0</span> likes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Hain</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cisco.com/security/ipv6-whats-new/#comment-106424</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cisco.com/?p=19276#comment-106424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cisco has a long track record of &#039;listening to our customers&#039;. That is a double edged sword though, as for the last decade the vast majority of our customers have repetitively de-prioritized IPv6 in relation to other development efforts they required. While IPv6 functionality has been incorporated in many products in anticipation of the IPv4 pool exhaustion, often it dropped just below the line of available resources when the high-priority customer requirements were moved to the head of the queue. 

While as you note we still have a fair amount of work to do, the fact that many more customers recognize IPv6 as a priority is helping adjust the development efforts to make sure IPv6 fits within the resources available. We do take our customer&#039;s priorities seriously, and work hard to meet those needs. When rapid changes in direction occur, as is happening now, gaps in our ability to meet anticipated needs are exposed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cisco has a long track record of &#8216;listening to our customers&#8217;. That is a double edged sword though, as for the last decade the vast majority of our customers have repetitively de-prioritized IPv6 in relation to other development efforts they required. While IPv6 functionality has been incorporated in many products in anticipation of the IPv4 pool exhaustion, often it dropped just below the line of available resources when the high-priority customer requirements were moved to the head of the queue. </p>
<p>While as you note we still have a fair amount of work to do, the fact that many more customers recognize IPv6 as a priority is helping adjust the development efforts to make sure IPv6 fits within the resources available. We do take our customer&#8217;s priorities seriously, and work hard to meet those needs. When rapid changes in direction occur, as is happening now, gaps in our ability to meet anticipated needs are exposed.
<p class="comment-like"><img class="comment-like-btn" title="Vote" onclick="cl_like_this('http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php',106424)" src="http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-content/plugins/comments-likes/images/like.png" />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span id="comment-like-cnt-106424">0</span> likes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yexub assouf</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cisco.com/security/ipv6-whats-new/#comment-105815</link>
		<dc:creator>yexub assouf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cisco.com/?p=19276#comment-105815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been using IPv6 for almost a decade now.

Even having an IPv6 only VLAN etc (back in the day of having a funneled connection rather than native)

Why has it taken Cisco so long to get some of its act into gear? Why only now is kit starting to deal with this properly? Why is even now kit coming out that doesn&#039;t have parity between 4 and 6? When will Cisco kit start using v6 for its management?

It&#039;s 2011 ... its quite pitiful how Cisco keeps tweeting about its fairly mediocre handling of IPv6]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been using IPv6 for almost a decade now.</p>
<p>Even having an IPv6 only VLAN etc (back in the day of having a funneled connection rather than native)</p>
<p>Why has it taken Cisco so long to get some of its act into gear? Why only now is kit starting to deal with this properly? Why is even now kit coming out that doesn&#8217;t have parity between 4 and 6? When will Cisco kit start using v6 for its management?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s 2011 &#8230; its quite pitiful how Cisco keeps tweeting about its fairly mediocre handling of IPv6
<p class="comment-like"><img class="comment-like-btn" title="Vote" onclick="cl_like_this('http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php',105815)" src="http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-content/plugins/comments-likes/images/like.png" />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span id="comment-like-cnt-105815">0</span> likes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cisco.com/security/ipv6-whats-new/#comment-104003</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cisco.com/?p=19276#comment-104003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will Cisco be updating firmware on older routers (RV042) to handle IPv6? Or, will users be forced to buy new equipment?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will Cisco be updating firmware on older routers (RV042) to handle IPv6? Or, will users be forced to buy new equipment?
<p class="comment-like"><img class="comment-like-btn" title="Vote" onclick="cl_like_this('http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php',104003)" src="http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-content/plugins/comments-likes/images/like.png" />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span id="comment-like-cnt-104003">1</span> like</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
