We noticed that we're no longer getting results back for google.com
when we do queries from a few of our recursive servers (other ones are
fine).
A bit of searching revealed that a few of our servers are listed here
http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/ipv6/statistics/data/no_.txt
(ther
On 15/04/15 16:05, Brian Rak wrote:
We noticed that we're no longer getting results back for google.com
when we do queries from a few of our recursive servers (other ones are
fine).
A bit of searching revealed that a few of our servers are listed here
http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/ipv6/
On 4/15/2015 11:28 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 15/04/15 16:05, Brian Rak wrote:
We noticed that we're no longer getting results back for google.com
when we do queries from a few of our recursive servers (other ones are
fine).
A bit of searching revealed that a few of our servers are listed h
And you are not alone... While my employer has deployed a lot of IPv6
internally (still not 100% though), some internal DNS servers are
blacklisted by Google. Probably because a lot of our internal labs (which
are also IPv6-enabled of course) are managed by the engineers using the
lab, so, ending u
I suggest checking if any of your affected users have broken 6to4 setups,
and that you are applying the relevant mitigations in RFC 6343.
MTU size issues and high latency have also both been mentioned as
possible reasons for the mysterious blacklist.
It has also been said that n...@google.co
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest checking if any of your affected users have broken 6to4 setups,
> and that you are applying the relevant mitigations in RFC 6343.
>
> MTU size issues and high latency have also both been mentioned
On 16/04/15 01:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6
connectivity and latency on an ongoing basis. The Google DNS servers do
not return records to DNS resolvers if our measurements indicate
that for users of those resolvers, HTTP/HTTPS
On 4/15/2015 8:57 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter
mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I suggest checking if any of your affected users have broken 6to4
setups,
and that you are applying the relevant mitigations in RFC 6343.
M
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 16/04/15 01:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
>> For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6
>> connectivity and latency on an ongoing basis. The Google DNS servers do
>> not return records to DNS resolvers if our meas
On 17/04/2015 15:17, Erik Kline wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 01:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>
>>> For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6
>>> connectivity and latency on an ongoing basis. The Google DNS servers do
>>> not re
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 17/04/2015 15:17, Erik Kline wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
>>> On 16/04/15 01:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>>
For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6
connectivity an
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
>> no incentive to fix the IPv6 problem. The correct incentive would be to
>> tell an operator that they will be blacklisted un
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
no incentive to fix the IPv6 problem. The correct incentive would be to
tell an operat
And in the meantime, accept that the users of that operator's network
cannot reliably reach our services?
If you were a user of that operator, I suspect you wouldn't like that. I
suspect you especially wouldn't like it if you called the operator and they
told you there were no problems, and most w
You are right, it can not be Google's responsibility to fix other networks.
That being said, given initial and then monthly warnings, including a link
to a FAQ, from noreply@ to whois contacts, you would most likely help
increase IPv6 adoption.
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
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
> >>
On 17/04/15 07:24, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Often operators will contact us and claim there is no problem in the
network, and most of the time it turns out that there was a problem they
didn't know about
I think it's the "know about" that's the problem. From experience, it
can be both baffling a
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:
> And in the meantime, accept that the users of that operator's network
> cannot reliably reach our services?
>
> If you were a user of that operator, I suspect you wouldn't like that. I
> suspect you especially wouldn't like it if you call
On 4/17/15 07:55, Ca By wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote:
And in the meantime, accept that the users of that operator's
network cannot reliably reach our services?
If you were a user of that operator, I suspect you wouldn
+1!
Some more info on metrics, cutoff points, etc would help reduce FUD, but I
can't see "your reaction to my problems on my network breaks my CGN setup"
being a very valid argument either way.
It _would_ be interesting to know if Google would do the inverse in case
IPv4 performs badly and IPv6 w
On 17/04/2015 18:24, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> And in the meantime, accept that the users of that operator's network
> cannot reliably reach our services?
I understand the dilemma. But if you don't make it easy for the operator
in question to know that they have a problem, it will definitely not ge
Lorenzo Colitti schreef op 16-4-2015 om 2:57:
For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6
connectivity and latency on an ongoing basis. The Google DNS servers
do not return records to DNS resolvers if our measurements
indicate that for users of those resolvers, H
What right do you have to know what your users are doing?
What right does Google have to hand over their information to a third party
(you)?
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
Richard Hartmann schreef op 18-4-2015 om 11:04:
What right do you have to know what your users are doing?
What right does Google have to hand over their information to a third
party (you)?
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
Good point Richard. I think your argument is valid and
Dave,
I have been to China for two weeks just now. my views on any sharing at all
have become a lot dimmer, recently.
You never know what into this might leak to whom. State, corporate or
private.
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
25 matches
Mail list logo
