Jim Popovitch wrote:
With the thousands of datacenters that exist with IPv4 cores,
what will it take to get them to move all of their infrastructure
and customers to IPv6?
A L2 switched (or Hubbed ? :) 'datacenter' doesn't need to do much
hardware wise, install IPv6 stacks on the hosts,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:13:40 +0100, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
With the thousands of datacenters that exist with IPv4 cores,
what will it take to get them to move all of their infrastructure
and customers to IPv6?
A L2 switched (or Hubbed ? :)
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:09 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
With the thousands of datacenters that exist with IPv4 cores, what
will it take to get them to move all of their infrastructure and
customers to IPv6? Can it even be done or will they just run IPv6
to the core and proxy the rest?
-Jim
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:50:14AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
[ .. snip .. ]
1) IPv6 on the internet overall seems a bit unreliable at the moment.
Entire /32's disappear and reappear, gone for days at a time. The
most common path over IPv6 from the US to Europe is US-JP-US-EU. I
8) Once we got everything on the network and server side ready for
and usable on IPv6 we discovered that a lot of our client's
applications just had no idea what to do with IPv6 connections. Many
PHP applications broke because they expected $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR']
to fit within 15
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites, we started
getting complaints from some users that they couldn't reach the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing problems.
Running your own local 6to4 relay (rfc3068) will improve
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:13:31AM -0500, Kevin Loch wrote:
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites, we started
getting complaints from some users that they couldn't reach the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites,
we started
getting complaints from some users that they couldn't reach
the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing
problems.
Running your own local 6to4 relay (rfc3068)
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites, we
started getting complaints from some users that they couldn't
reach the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing
problems.
-Original Message-
From: David Raistrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:33 AM
To: James
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter (Was: Awful quiet?)
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, James wrote:
There are already *several* sane
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites, we
started getting complaints from some users that they couldn't
reach the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing
problems.
Kevin Day wrote:
We wouldn't have met the proposed 2005-1
requirements for a /44 (we don't come close to 100,000 devices), and
lose functionality if we're required to advertise it through a single
aggregated address.
The high requirements of the current 2005-1 were so thoroughly
rejected
be followed up.
Regards,
Jordi
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:15:41 +
Para: Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter (Was: Awful quiet?)
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:13:31AM -0500
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:50:14AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
1) IPv6 on the internet overall seems a bit unreliable at the moment.
Entire /32's disappear and reappear, gone for days at a time.
That's certainly true for people not doing it in production. But that
ain't a problem as they aren't
On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
1) IPv6 on the internet overall seems a bit unreliable at the moment.
Entire /32's disappear and reappear, gone for days at a time.
That's certainly true for people not doing it in production. But
that
ain't a problem as they aren't doing
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:59:15PM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
I admit, my experiences are with only a tiny number of users, so I
may have just had bad luck. But, I had trouble finding any of our
IPv6 guinea pigs that didn't take a perceptibly slower route to us
over 6 than they do for 4.
16 matches
Mail list logo
