On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:03:20PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> I don't think it's pMTU discovery because it happens with MSS 1220
> as well, and the certificate which makes it through is quite big.
> Maybe broken reverse proxy or something like that. Verified to be
> broken from all NLNOG RIN
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:39:12PM +0300, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
> At the same time, i'm thinking out loud...
> Why would a windows application send an a request to an IPv6 DNS
> server over native IPv6 in order to find the IPv4 address of a
> server and get IPv6 over IPv4 connectivity?
W
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:27:54PM +, Christopher Palmer wrote:
> I am "acking" this thread.
>
> If there is feedback on the ongoing experiment or our consideration
> of sunsetting Teredo, do let me know.
>
> So far people have been quite enthusiastic.
Let me ask one thing... a coup
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 08:49:54PM +0200, Martin Millnert wrote:
> We still have the last big problem with access enablement (how many
> NRENs have member universities with access-enabled IPv6?), and CPEs.
In Germany, about 1.01 or 2.01 (the .01 being my part of my department),
to my knowledge.
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 04:20:48PM +0200, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> I would like to ask application developers to make it configurable.
> I'm a server admin most of my time and I like a combination of reasonable
> default and the ability to change it best. Of course that leaves the
> question what
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:05:24AM -0700, Jason Fesler wrote:
> I know that the various operating systems tend to cache any PMTUD issues
> that they can detect; future connections to that destination will use
> smaller packets accordingly. What I can not see to find is an adequate
> description of
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:20:18PM +0100, Matjaz Straus Istenic wrote:
> On 30. jan. 2014, at 21:13, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> > ndp -an
> Well, this is for local IPv6 ND cache only. I'm looking for a command to
> display the _destination_ cache in order to check for changed Path MTU. Rui's
> su
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:23:21PM -0500, James Small wrote:
> Interested in what you're using to send/receive SMTP over IPv6:
>
> A) Using (product) from __ (vendor)
three systems where I'm (partially) responsible
1. A) Using postfix from NetBSD
2. partially A) (clients to sub
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:58:09PM +0100, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> Sendmail does have an advantage if/when you e.g. have uucp connections
Not necessarily. All I'd imagine to do with UUCP can be done with
postfix and maybe transport tables; I've run a connection that way
for a couple of years.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 03:37:28PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 17/02/2014 15:16, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> > Not necessarily. All I'd imagine to do with
I should maybe have added: "e-mail over"
> > UUCP can be done with
> > postfix and maybe transpor
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:46:04PM +0200, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
> I am still looking for an IPv6-wol (without mono)
I suspect that sending to the all-stations multicast would work, wouldn't
it? The hardware detects the magic pattern anywhere in the packet.
Thinking about it - it should work whet
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:14:31AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> So, one interpretation would be that if the device hasn't subscribed to the
> "all IPv6 nodes" multicast group, it's not an IPv6 node, and shouldn't
> receive the traffic.
Uh, no.
the link-local stuff must never be snoope
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:14:31AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> > So, one interpretation would be that if the device hasn't subscribed to the
> > "all IPv6 nodes" mult
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:01:49PM +0100, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 17/09/14 11:07, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> >In IPv6, the data forwarding rules are more straight forward because
> >MLD is mandated for addresses with scope 2 (link-scope) or greater.
> >The
but I guess it would be
more helpful if the real problem would be fixed.
Regards,
Ignatios Souvatzis
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 03:08:43PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2014, at 15:01, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> > On 10/10/14 14:50, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >
> >> % telnet -4 www.bt.com 80
> >> Trying 62.239.186.73...
> >> Connected to www.bt.com.
> >> Escape character is '^]'.
> >> GET /
> >> Co
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
>
> I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I know
> of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested to hear
> about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight 4over6 (no
Hi,
there seems to be something that smells of a path mtu problem
reaching google servers from here[1]... (first-hop of the University's
external link is a short tunnel). Workaround is blocking google v6 using
the 4or6 addon.
Has anybody else seen this?
-is
[1]:
inet6num:2001:6
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +, Alec Edworthy wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/2015 10:06, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > there seems to be something that smells of a path mtu problem
> > reaching google servers from here[1]... (first-hop of the Uni
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:40:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 20, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> > I turned off my IPv6 HE.net tunnel yesterday because family was complaining
> > about Youtube not working. I haven't enabled it again. Other people who had
> > problems, are things work
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:47:51AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, Andras Toth wrote:
>
> >Airport Express is setting the IPv6 Tunnel MTU to 1280 in all cases and
> >it's not configurable, as far as I'm aware.
>
> That is what I have discovered. So the HE.net tunnel t
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 07:32:47AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Mikael Abrahamsson
>
> > So I guess the problem this time was some Google servers sending me
> > PTB=1280 and then Chrome not taking this into account when sending
> > UDP packets when using QUIC, resulting in fragmented IPv
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:46:03PM -0500, Paul Timmins wrote:
> I'm having problems that are getting debugged uselessly that seem to tie to
> IPv6. Can someone hit ticket 301481 and hit me back offlist?
In case this is of interest: I've reported to n...@cloudflare.com that
they have a PMTUd hole,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
> >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
> >> premium?
>
> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than wha
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.
You mean, trained to see their dow
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:56:38PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 4/16/15 10:22 PM, Frank Habicht wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 4/17/2015 6:45 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
> >>On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> >>>But the incentive is wrong. Forcing users to drop back to IPv4 offers
> >>
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:56:45AM +, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
> As far as tweaking these values to deal with some sleepy devices is
> concerned: I'd personally prefer to consider these devices broken; they
> should at least send an RS when they wake up and ensure their
> configuration
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 07:17:41AM -0700, Ca By wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Thomas Schäfer
> wrote:
>
> Generally speaking, it is better to have no IPv6 access than broken IPv6.
>
Famous old words.[2]
-is
[2]
http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/slides/ecai6-2
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 06:38:54PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:35:53PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
> > Thomas Schäfer writes:
> >
> > > In case of hs worms, I phoned the webmaster, but he says he is busy and
> > > has higher priorities.
> >
> > But if the server had an IP
Hm:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:16:51PM +0100, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
>
> is the this site down?
>
> http://test-ipv6.com/
>
> Some minutes ago it displayed wrong test results. Now it seems to me it is
> down.
TOMEETOO
on a related note: it doesn't have any IPv6 resolution anymore:
theory.cs.u
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 16/09/14 13:34, Bj?rn Mork wrote:
> > This depends on all-stations multicast being forwarded to inactive
> > ports. If it works with your switches, then fine. But I don't think you
> > can assume it works everywhere.
>
> I'd be quite
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:30:50AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've run into a scenario where a website doesn't seem to be listening to
> PTB. I can reach them just fine from an MTU1500 clean IPv6 connection, but
> if I reach from a MTU1500<->MTU1480<->MTU1500 connection, it does
32 matches
Mail list logo
