I may well not have fully figured out what was going on in this particular situation. Mostly because I got tired of trying to sort out the endless mysteries of IPv6 running under XP Service Pack 2.
Teredo may or may not have been at issue. I saw some analyses indicating this might have been the case. In any event, after backing it and IPv6 out, all was well. fh ----------------- >[hmmmm how come I didn't parse any operational content in this post...] > >Fred Heutte wrote: >[..] >> I spent a couple hours in a hotel recently trying to untangle why >> using the DSL system I could see the net but couldn't get to any >> sites other than a few I tried at random like the BBC, Yahoo >> and Google. >> >> That's because they are among the few that apparently have >> IPv6 enabled web systems. > >They don't have "IPv6 enabled web systems", a lot of people wished that >they did. What your problem most likely was, was a broken DNS server, >which, when queried for an AAAA simply doesn't respond. > >Most Network Operators (to keep it a bit on topic for this mailinglist) >can't do anything about broken DNS servers at End User sites. > >Note that this has *nothing* to do with Teredo, which even doesn't >activate itself when it can't get packets to be relayed. You can't thus >blame Microsoft for this. The DNS server is broken, not them. I know it >is always fun to blame M$ but really it isn't true. > >Note also that the BBC once did have a AAAA related DNS problem, that >was in 2002 though and was quickly resolved: >http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-04/msg00559.html >These had another kind of problem, they returned NXDOMAIN, so that it >looked like the requested label was not there; much better still than >the simple ignore and forget of the End User DNS problems. > > >> I was once, circa 1995 or so, fairly enamored of IPv6. Now it >> makes me wonder just exactly what problem it is good at solving. > >Primarily only one: a *lot* more address space. Enough to provide our >children's children children and the rest of the world with unique >addressable address space. Nothing more nothing less. > >> Don't get me wrong -- it's not the fault of IPv6 and its designers >> and advocates, it's that the world has moved on and other >> methods have been found for the questions it was designed to >> address. > >As it primarily resolves the address space problem and it solves this >perfectly well, how exactly did your world move on by staying limited to >32bits and only 4 million addresses while there are many more people on >this planet, not even thinking of subnets or having multiple addresses >per person? > >Greets, > Jeroen > >