On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Mark Andrews wrote:
:: How many of those clients are actually using ISP's nameservers when
:: the breakage occurs?
I'll be able to answer that "somewhat" when we have our data collected.
The "somewhat" is because I don't know of a way to identify if the user's
request goes t
Tore,
First of all, I'd like to say thank you for this data, it is
*extremely* useful! So, we now that we have 2 different tests that show
the same ballpark of breakage. Some questions in-line...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Tore Anderson wrote:
:: To that end, I've been running my own measurem
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jason Livingood wrote:
:: Igor - How do you define broken? And what technical issues do you believe
:: underlie this condition?
This is actually very subjective, and I suspect would differ from provider
to provider, so, these are *my* own shot at this definition, not my
em
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: >
:: > :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: > :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: > :: is shipped by Microsoft.
:: >
:: > Why do you say that? As far as
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable browser,
as long as it's going to FQDN's
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
::
:: On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: >
:: > You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
:: > behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
:: > behavior proble
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: > So, the question now is, what can be done? By no means do I think that
:: > lying based on transport is a good idea, however, I simply don't have a
:: > better one, and, this is a real pro
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:
:: >Dual-stack and IPv6-only installations are in some cases broken today.
:: >It's unrealistic to say, "Let them feel the pain & they'll upgrade,"
:: >because the people this affects are unlikely to be able to understand
:: >what is happening to them. As
:: Solve it in the browser, which is well-placed to know if there
:: really is connectivity and can even determine if IPv6 (or IPv4)
:: is temporarily broken or abnormally slow:
::
:: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01
:: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-tran-announ
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:15:39AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
:: Rather than having the DNS magically lie to people, why not use the
:: DNS detection mechanism as an indicator that a customer has a broken
:: v6 implementation. Then you can turn off _that customer's_ IPv6
:: connectivity, cont
10 matches
Mail list logo
