Anyone found out what happened with teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com ?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IPv6-Tunnel-Microsofts-Teredo-Server-nicht-erreichbar-1915972.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dteredo%2Bmicrosoft%2Bipv6%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1303%
Hi,
> Anyone found out what happened with teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com ?
>
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IPv6-Tunnel-Microsofts-Teredo-Server-nicht-erreichbar-1915972.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dteredo%2Bmicrosoft%2Bipv6%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DX%26b
Thanks for the update Sander.
The following seems to have the full info.
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://ipv6.br/teredo-sunset-mais-um-passo-na-transicao-para-o-ipv6/
At the same time, i'm thinking out loud...
Wh
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
4, 2013 11:52 PM
To: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
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
> se
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
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.
I am too. I would really like to see 6to4 and teredo be default off
everywhere, and people who
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 Jul 16, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I am too. I would re
On 2013-07-17 15:09 , Ron Broersma wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
>>
>>> If there is feedback on the ongoing experiment or our
>>> consideration of sunsetting Teredo, do let me know.
>>>
>>> So far people ha
Jeroen Massar writes:
> Windows boxes that are in an Active Domain (which should match your
> 'enterprise net') have Teredo and 6to4 disabled per default.
Sure about that? IIRC this depends on the Windows version. And I think I
have seen Win 2008R2 Servers within an AD, with at least 6to4
enable
Ron,
> >>> I am too. I would really like to see 6to4 and teredo be default off
> >>> everywhere, and people who want it can manually turn it on. If
> >>> teredo went away completely, that would also be a good thing.
> >>
> >> Strongly concur here as well. One less thing I have to disable on
> >>
Hi,
off the top of my head it's roughly as follows:
a) 6to4
Win7/Server 2008 generation and before: "if IPv4 address = Non-RFC 1918
address, automatically enable 6to4 and try to resolve 6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com
to get 'nearest relay'".
no idea as for Win8/Server 2012.
b) Teredo
Vista: enable
t 2013 15:20
> To: Ron Broersma
> Cc: Christopher Palmer; ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de; Mikael Abrahamsson
> Subject: Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
>
> On 2013-07-17 15:09 , Ron Broersma wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >
On Jul 17, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-07-17 15:09 , Ron Broersma wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
>>>
If there is feedback on the ongoing experiment or our
consideration of
Jens Link writes:
as I like to talk to myself
>> There's quite some debate which approach to use due to operational
>> practices and MS telling people "not to 'fully' disable IPv6 as you
>> might lose support for $SYSTEM".
>
> I'm still looking for a source too.
http://technet.microsoft.
>> There's quite some debate which approach to use due to operational
>> practices and MS telling people "not to 'fully' disable IPv6 as you
>> might lose support for $SYSTEM".
>
> I'm still looking for a source too. Rumors have it that the Windows 7
> roll out here (large enterprise customer) wi
Enno Rey writes:
Hi,
> There's quite some debate which approach to use due to operational
> practices and MS telling people "not to 'fully' disable IPv6 as you
> might lose support for $SYSTEM".
I'm still looking for a source too. Rumors have it that the Windows 7
roll out here (large enterpri
Hi,
thanks for that link.
big questions is: what means "disabling IPv6" in those contexts?
unchecking IPv6 in GUI based interface properties? setting "DisabledComponents"
to 0xfff? using some netsh-based approach?
from what I hear: "as long as you can successfully ping ::1, IPv6 is considere
On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
...
> Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
> specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If
> you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed
> behind an IPv4 NAT) put into the protocol. On
On 17 jul 2013, at 23:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> ...
>
>> Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
>> specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If
>> you accept the premise that you have to work aro
On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
...
Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If
you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed
behind
On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:29, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
>>> specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If
>>> you
On 18/07/2013 22:40, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:29, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
>> On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
specification of Teredo, I
On 18/lug/2013, at 22:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity,
> Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic "prefer IPv6" rule.
> The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo.
>
> Recent Windows deprefs Tered
On 19 jul 2013, at 11:30, Marco Sommani wrote:
> On 18/lug/2013, at 22:09, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
>> Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity,
>> Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic "prefer IPv6" rule.
>> The default RFC 3484 table co
On 19/lug/2013, at 10:50, Martin Millnert wrote:
> On 19 jul 2013, at 11:30, Marco Sommani wrote:
>
>> On 18/lug/2013, at 22:09, Brian E Carpenter
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity,
>>> Teredo was used in older Windows because of the
On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity,
Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic "prefer IPv6" rule.
The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo.
AFAIK, every version of windows (i.e.
On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:34, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity,
>> Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic "prefer IPv6" rule.
>> The default RFC 3484 table covers 6t
On 19/07/2013 22:15, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:34, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
>> On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity,
>>> Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic "prefer IPv6" r
29 matches
Mail list logo
