Re: Berkely Netalyzr for IPv6/IPv4 testing (Was: Yahoo and IPv6)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:14:43 +0200, Jeroen Massar said: > On 2011-Jun-01 18:36, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On the other hand, if you have a firewall you need to disable in order > > for it to get valid IPv6 results, you don't actually have a working IPv6 > > configuration, do you? > > The

Re: Berkely Netalyzr for IPv6/IPv4 testing (Was: Yahoo and IPv6)

On 2011-Jun-01 18:36, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:54:28 EDT, Atticus said: >> Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless. That is quite what I noted, the thing is that apparently the delay for clicking 'ok' is taken into account for the measurements

Re: Berkely Netalyzr for IPv6/IPv4 testing (Was: Yahoo and IPv6)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:54:28 EDT, Atticus said: > Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless. On the other hand, if you have a firewall you need to disable in order for it to get valid IPv6 results, you don't actually have a working IPv6 configuration, do you? pgpvDOdEnbuYr

Berkely Netalyzr for IPv6/IPv4 testing (Was: Yahoo and IPv6)

Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless.

Berkely Netalyzr for IPv6/IPv4 testing (Was: Yahoo and IPv6)

On 2011-Jun-01 13:18, Tim Chown wrote: > > On 31 May 2011, at 22:31, Voll, Toivo wrote: > >> >> Netalyzr (http://n3.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/analysis) finds no >> issues with my IPv6 status, but alerts me to the fact (since >> confirmed by switching to IE) that Google Chrome defaults to IPv4 >

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 31 May 2011, at 22:31, Voll, Toivo wrote: > > Netalyzr (http://n3.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/analysis) finds no issues with > my IPv6 status, but alerts me to the fact (since confirmed by switching to > IE) that Google Chrome defaults to IPv4 rather than IPv6, and consequently a > lot of t

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

the testing tools claim that my IPv6 is broken. Toivo Voll Network Administrator Information Technology Communications University of South Florida -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:25 To: Arie Vayner Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject:

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

ken. Toivo Voll Network Administrator Information Technology Communications University of South Florida -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:25 To: Arie Vayner Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Even more disturbing tha

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 19, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 5/9/2011 8:16 AM, Arie Vayner wrote: >> What disturbs me is the piece saying "We recommend disabling >> IPv6

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/9/2011 8:16 AM, Arie Vayner wrote: What disturbs me is the piece saying "We recommend disabling IPv6 ", with a very easy link... And I was just sent this

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

>> Right now I see something like ool-6038bdcc.static.optonline.net for one >> of our servers, how does this >> mean anything to anyone else? > > Does http://وزارة-الأتصالات.مصر/ mean more to you? > > Or http://xn--4gbrim.xnymcbaaajlc6dj7bxne2c.xn--wgbh1c which is what it > translates to in you

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 5/17/2011 5:25 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> My point was that at least in IPv6, you can reach your boxes whereas with >> IPv4, you couldn't reach them at all (unless you used a rendezvous service >> and preconfigured stuff). > > Actually

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On May 17, 2011, at 10:30 13PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > On May 17, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > >> --- joe...@bogus.com wrote: >> From: Joel Jaeggli >> On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote: >>> On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Wee

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Paul Vixie wrote: time in Nicaragua he said that he has a lot of days like this and he'd like more work to be possible when only local connectivity was available. Compelling stuff. Pity there's no global market for localized services or we'd already have it. Nevertheless this must and will get

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Steve Clark wrote: This is all very confusing to me. How are meaningful names going to assigned automatically? Right now I see something like ool-6038bdcc.static.optonline.net for one of our servers, how does this mean anything to anyone else? Does http://وزارة-الأتصالات.مصر/ mean more to you

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, wrote: > Unless you end up behind a fascist firewall that actually checks that the > EUI-64 half of the SLAAC address actually matches your MAC address - but we > all > know that firewalls are weak at IPv6 support, so probably nobody's actually > doing that check

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:22:23 PDT, Joel Jaeggli said: > On May 17, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > Only if you design your network that way. EUI-64 isn't required. > don't much matter, if you move around you're going get them a lot. Of course, if you're moving around and getting EUI-64 ad

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On May 17, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > --- joe...@bogus.com wrote: > From: Joel Jaeggli > >> if you put something in the dns you do so because you want to discovered. >> scoping the nameservers such that they only express certain certain resource >> records to queriers in a p

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

--- joe...@bogus.com wrote: From: Joel Jaeggli > if you put something in the dns you do so because you want to discovered. > scoping the nameservers such that they only express certain certain resource > records to queriers in a particular scope is fairly straight forward. > -

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

--- scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: From: Scott Brim Yes indeed. - Hm, that's a funny correlation to what I have been thinking and talking about lately. I'll have to read the draft-brim-mobili

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On May 17, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > --- joe...@bogus.com wrote: > From: Joel Jaeggli > On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote: >> On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: >>> What about privacy concerns >>> >>> "Privacy

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

Yes indeed. -- sent from a tiny screen

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu > Why give the corpment (corporate/government contraction) an easy time at it? > Just like the early days, security and privacy do not seem to be in folk's > mind > when things are being designed. But more importantly, who has mor

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

--- joe...@bogus.com wrote: From: Joel Jaeggli On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote: >> On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: >> >>> What about privacy concerns >> >> "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely > > Forget that a

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

(And I get flamed by multiple people because I put in the quote and managed to hit send before adding the commentary. Maybe one of these days I'll learn not to try to mix replying to e-mail and dealing with vendor engineers doing a tape library expansion at the same time. :) Oh well, equivalent te

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote: >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: >> >>> What about privacy concerns >> >> "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely > > Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is b

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote: > > On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: > > > What about privacy concerns > > "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is blown at one level doesn't mean you give it away at every other

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: - From: On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: > What about privacy concerns "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely -- It doesn't have to be that way. We can design the

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: > What about privacy concerns "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely pgpsQx7TWOx0s.pgp Description: PGP signature

user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

--- d...@dotat.at wrote: Or perhaps user-relative names. http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/uia-osdi.pdf -- What about privacy concerns; stopping your every move being tracked through the personal name attached to all of your devices? Did I miss

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:56:37PM + Quoting Paul Vixie (vi...@isc.org): > :-). > > to be clear, the old pre-web T1 era internet did not have much content > but what content there was, was not lopsided. other than slip and ppp > there w

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Paul Vixie wrote: > > This is all very confusing to me. How are meaningful names going to assigned > > automatically? > > It'll probably be a lot like Apple's and Xerox's various multicast naming > systems if we want it to work in non-globally connected networks. Or perhaps user-relative names.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:49:47 -0400 > From: Steve Clark > > This is all very confusing to me. How are meaningful names going to assigned > automatically? It'll probably be a lot like Apple's and Xerox's various multicast naming systems if we want it to work in non-globally connected networks

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 17 mei 2011, at 17:55, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > firewall traversal Smells like job security: first install a firewall, then traverse it anyway.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 17, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > On 05/17/2011 08:56 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: >>> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200 >>> From: Mans Nilsson >>> > ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone > reach it by name. that must and will change. let

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/17/2011 5:25 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: My point was that at least in IPv6, you can reach your boxes whereas with IPv4, you couldn't reach them at all (unless you used a rendezvous service and preconfigured stuff). Actually almost everyone will *still* need a rendezvous service as even if th

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 05/17/2011 08:56 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200 From: Mans Nilsson ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone reach it by name. that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it possible. I'd like to respond to this by s

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200 > From: Mans Nilsson > > > > ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone > > > reach it by name. > > > > that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it possible. > > I'd like to respond to this by stating that I

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 17, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Mans Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 04:22:54AM + > Quoting Paul Vixie (vi...@isc.org): >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700 >>> >>> ... It's n

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 04:22:54AM + Quoting Paul Vixie (vi...@isc.org): > > From: Owen DeLong > > Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700 > > > > ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone > > reach

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

> -Original Message- > From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com] > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:10 AM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Owen DeLong > Cc: NANOG list > Subject: RE: Yahoo and IPv6 > > > > > Because that way the IPv4 and IPv6 swarms remain d

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

In message <80660.1305606...@nsa.vix.com>, Paul Vixie writes: > > From: Owen DeLong > > Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700 > > > > ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone > > reach it by name. > > that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it p

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> From: Owen DeLong > Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700 > > ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone > reach it by name. that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it possible.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/16/2011 3:13 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:37:46 -0400 From: Jim Gettys perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite viable to me. dns providers who don't keep up with the market (which means ipv6+dnssec in this context) will lose business to th

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

In message <51008.1305573...@nsa.vix.com>, Paul Vixie writes: > > Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:37:46 -0400 > > From: Jim Gettys > > > > > perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite > > > viable to me. dns providers who don't keep up with the market (which > > > means ip

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 16, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > On 05/14/2011 07:39 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> Jim Gettys writes: >> >>> ... we have to get naming squared away. Typing IPv6 addresses is for the >>> birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't a >>> viable solution. >> p

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 16, 2011, at 2:10 AM, George Bonser wrote: >> >> Because that way the IPv4 and IPv6 swarms remain disconnected in the >> absence of some dual stack peers. (I.e., if the swarm is small and >> you're the only IPv6 participant.) >> >> It would be much better if you could go from IPv6 to IPv

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 16, 2011, at 1:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 16 mei 2011, at 9:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I believe that the BitTorrent clients >> are smart enough to discard the IPv4 nodes reached through NAT64 and will, >> instead, just >> use the native IPv6 nodes. I don't see this as a pr

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:37:46 -0400 > From: Jim Gettys > > > perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite > > viable to me. dns providers who don't keep up with the market (which > > means ipv6+dnssec in this context) will lose business to those who do. > > I don't

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 05/14/2011 07:39 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: Jim Gettys writes: ... we have to get naming squared away. Typing IPv6 addresses is for the birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't a viable solution. perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 15 May 2011, at 22:55, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >> >>> ...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just >>> be ok with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-only

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

> > Because that way the IPv4 and IPv6 swarms remain disconnected in the > absence of some dual stack peers. (I.e., if the swarm is small and > you're the only IPv6 participant.) > > It would be much better if you could go from IPv6 to IPv4 through a > NAT64. The problem is when the client is ha

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 16 mei 2011, at 9:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > I believe that the BitTorrent clients > are smart enough to discard the IPv4 nodes reached through NAT64 and will, > instead, just > use the native IPv6 nodes. I don't see this as a problem and I"m not sure why > you do. Because that way the IPv4 an

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 15, 2011, at 8:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >> >>> ...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just >>> be ok with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-on

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

> -Original Message- > From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at] > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 8:56 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 > > On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On May 15, 2011, at

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: ...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just be ok with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-only + NAT64 networks you're building, I suppose? Matthew Kaufman Uh,

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 5/15/2011 6:49 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> >> >> On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to SIP >> > phones o

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> e have agreed to disagree on the value of this before. Sorry your not so > popular protocol is going the way of EGP it's just not fit for the > evolving internet and will be subject to natural deselction. I am sure you > will disagree with that and insist every end user must always support

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 15 mei 2011, at 20:03, Jima wrote: BitTorrent tends to be an evolving protocol, with lots of clients competing for mindshare; I'm not certain that limitation will remain. Two years ago the Pirate Bay got on IPv6 in a way that was incompatible with existing clients that were IP version ag

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 15 mei 2011, at 6:29, Matthew Kaufman wrote: And that would be the fault of NAT64, which for all of the applications I mentioned (and more) made the seriously wrong assumption that every IPv4 address is looked up in a DNS server. This brings to mind the story of the physicist (but it cou

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 2011-05-15 10:28, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 5/15/2011 6:49 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: We have agreed to disagree on the value of this before. Sorry your not so popular protocol is going the way of EGP it's just not fit for the evolving internet and will be subject to natural deselction. I

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 15, 2011 8:28 AM, "Matthew Kaufman" wrote: > > On 5/15/2011 6:49 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> >> >> On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to SIP phones on an IP4-only network. >> > >> >> Right,

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/15/2011 6:49 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" > wrote: > > > Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to SIP phones on an IP4-only network. > Right, that is why we have SBC / b2bue for the cases w

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" wrote: > > On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote: >> >> On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> >>> On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with nat64/dns64, there are several emp

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

When the RIAA and friends in congress and international chapter affiliates make it illegal to share a network address. Sorry that is when we turn them back on!! Christian de Larrinaga On 14 May 2011, at 19:27, "John Levine" wrote: >> I think that the real question is, when will people who

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote: On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web. For a version of "highly functional" that does not

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/10/2011 12:57 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: Your suggestion has two main disadvantages: 1) it doesn't work on some platforms, because input ACL won't stop ND learn/solicit -- obviously this is bad 2) it requires you to configure a potentially large input ACL on every single interface on the box, a

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web. For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype, BitTorrent, SIP pho

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 2011-05-14 13:25, Jim Gettys wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:59 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6 and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Jim Gettys writes: > ... we have to get naming squared away. Typing IPv6 addresses is for the > birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't a > viable solution. perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite viable to me. dns providers who don't

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> From: Paul Vixie > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 > Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 17:06:45 + > > > From: Marshall Eubanks > > Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400 > > > > I think that the real question is, when will people who are runni

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> From: Marshall Eubanks >> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400 >> >> I think that the real question is, when will people who are running >> IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ? > > is there an online betting mechanism we coul

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 05/14/2011 01:59 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: dditional carrier NAT in the future. I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6 and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:10:00AM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > > > > >Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with > >nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web. > > > > > > For a version of "highly functional" tha

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web. For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype, BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app usi

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 14 mei 2011, at 18:47, Paul Vixie wrote: folks who want to run V6 only and still be "on the internet" will need proxies for a long while. folks who want to run V6 only *today* and not have any proxies *today* are sort of on their own -- the industry will not cater to market non-forces.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

>I think that the real question is, when will people who are running >IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ? Probably never. What would be the incentive to turn off the NAT gateways? R's, John

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 EDT, Marshall Eubanks said: > I think that the real question is, when will people who are running IPv4 > only not be on the Internet by this definition ? Any 36 bit machines left on the net? pgpe167pAfCop.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 14, 2011 9:28 AM, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote: > > On May 14, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > >> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get > >> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by > >> no . So that's -1 from

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> From: Marshall Eubanks > Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400 > > I think that the real question is, when will people who are running > IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ? is there an online betting mechanism we could use, that we all think will still be in business decades

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 14, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > Matthew Kaufman writes: > >>> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get >>> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by >>> no . So that's -1 from me. >> >> Sounds to me like y

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

Matthew Kaufman writes: >> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get >> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by >> no . So that's -1 from me. > > Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more. in

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 14, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get >> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by >> no . So that's -1 from me. >> > > Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet an

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

>>> >> > > My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get > "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by > no . So that's -1 from me. > Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more. Matthew Kaufman

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 14, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On May 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until the

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are >>> 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from h

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I >> get "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already >> bitten by no .  So that's -1 from me. > > i choose to only run decnet ii, and the world should

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I > get "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already > bitten by no . So that's -1 from me. i choose to only run decnet ii, and the world should fix my connectivity problem. randy

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

> > My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I > get > "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten > by > no . So that's -1 from me. > Sounds like a job for NAT64/DNS64

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are >> 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of records. >> > > There will be no IPv6-only

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are > 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of records. > There will be no IPv6-only users. There will only be users with better IPv6 connectivity tha

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On May 12, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Scott Whyte wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 23:10, Franck Martin wrote: >> I think the yahoo test should just differentiate between no IPv6 and IPv6 >> is slow (test between 3s and 10s). Like: >> >> We have detected that you have IPv6 and will be able to access our

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 23:10, Franck Martin wrote: > I think the yahoo test should just differentiate between no IPv6 and IPv6 > is slow (test between 3s and 10s). Like: > > We have detected that you have IPv6 and will be able to access our site on > IPv6 day, but your user experience may not be

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

I think the yahoo test should just differentiate between no IPv6 and IPv6 is slow (test between 3s and 10s). Like: We have detected that you have IPv6 and will be able to access our site on IPv6 day, but your user experience may not be as good as with IPv4, you may consider disabling IPv6.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

In message <03c70cde-8169-437b-8394-26f839413...@muada.com>, Iljitsch van Beijn um writes: > On 11 mei 2011, at 2:39, Karl Auer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:19 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> For the record Apple's current iChat (the OS (10.6.7) is completely > >> up to date) fails such

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

:: From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] :: Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:23 PM :: To: Igor Gashinsky :: Cc: nanog@nanog.org :: Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 :: :: On May 10, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote: :: :: > On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: :: > :: &g

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

On 11 mei 2011, at 2:39, Karl Auer wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:19 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: >> For the record Apple's current iChat (the OS (10.6.7) is completely >> up to date) fails such a test. It will try IPv6 and not fallback >> to IPv4. End users shouldn't be seeing these sorts of e

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

* Tony Hain > So take the relays out of the path by putting up a 6to4 router and a > 2002:: prefix address on the content servers. Longest match will > cause 6to4 connected systems to prefer that prefix while native > connected systems will prefer the current prefix. The resulting IPv4 > path will

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

anog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 On May 10, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > :: On Tue, 10 May 2011 02:17:46 EDT, Igor Gashinsky said: > :: > :: > The time for finger-pointing is over, period, all we are all

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

anog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 On May 10, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > :: On Tue, 10 May 2011 02:17:46 EDT, Igor Gashinsky said: > :: > :: > The time for finger-pointing is over, period, all we are all

  1   2   >