On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15-sep-2007, at 21:25, Barrett Lyon wrote:
The other thought that occurred to me, does FF/Safari/IE have any
ability to default back to v4 if v6 is not working or behaving
badly? This could be a helpful transition feature but
On 9/15/07, Barrett Lyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How did you do the naming? Matching or unique?
Matched , I was thinking about doing a w6 or something more
unique for now, but that somewhat defeats the point.
I tried to do it in a round robin record based on the described
On 16 Sep 2007, at 07:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Browsers are pretty good at falling back on a different address in
general / IPv4 in particular when the initial try doesn't work,
Pretty good as in there is a browser standard to poke
[as this has nothing to do with Apple Airports in particular I changed
the subject again]
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Should be an operation defined by gethostbyname() no?
and in another:
Pretty good as in there is a browser standard to poke for v6 then v4
or is this a stack behavior?
No, it is
On 16/09/2007, at 8:03 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
- IPv6 native (anything not 2002::/16 + 2003::/32)
- IPv4 native
- IPv6 6to4 (2002::/16)
- IPv6 Teredo (2003::/32
Incase anyone is using this for reference purposes, Jaroen really
means 2001::/32, not 2003::/32.
Teredo was also previously on
On 16-sep-2007, at 15:17, Nathan Ward wrote:
6to4 uses protocol 41 over IP. This doesn't go through NAT
Those statements are both true, but they're unrelated. If your NAT
box knows there is more to IP than TCP and UDP, it's possible that
you can do IPv6-in-IP tunneling in general
On 16-sep-2007, at 10:46, Andy Davidson wrote:
Since this conversation has already talked about behaviour when
encountering vs A, I am worried that a browser running on a
dual-stack laptop might cache the returned when it has some v6
connectivity, and then refuse to look again
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
We see the browser cache bite us regularly with regard to the way
they dip into the cache for long-stale records today.
Does browser caching still work these days? I thought all web admins
disabled it on their servers because they can't
On 16 Sep 2007, at 15:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
We see the browser cache bite us regularly with regard to the way
they dip into the cache for long-stale records today.
Does browser caching still work these days? I thought all web
admins disabled it on their servers because they can't
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Does browser caching still work these days? I thought all web admins
disabled it on their servers because they can't be bothered to think
about which cache directives to send along with each page. I can rarely
return to a previously viewed page without the browser
I think we will never move to IPv6 if vendors don't do things
like the one in the Airport. However, in order to make this
transition phase where there may be a possible degradation
of the RTT, we need to cooperation of the operators, for
example deploying 6to4 relays in their networks.
On 16-sep-2007, at 16:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- setup a 6to4 relay + route 192.88.99.1 + 2002::/16
How?
Listing 11-7. A Cisco 6to4-to-IPv6 Gateway Configuration
!
interface Loopback2002
ip address 192.88.99.1 255.255.255.255
!
interface Tunnel2002
ipv6 enable
12 matches
Mail list logo
