> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:01:45 -0400
> From: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 support for com/net zones on October 19, 2004
> [ ... ]
> We've had reports before of F's covering /48 (2001:500::/48) being
> filtered by some people, based on th
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
>
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlos Friacas) [Thu 28 Oct 2004, 13:38 CEST]:
> > From AS1930 (Portugal, Europe): [it works...]
> >
> > ;; Query time: 544 msec
> > ;; SERVER: 2001:503:231d::2:30#53(2001:503:231d::2:30)
> > ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:11:40 2004
> > ;
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
> Anyone else care to comment? The hop count is suspiciously lower for
> IPv6 than for IPv4, and has twice the latency (coming from Europe too).
> But again, this is traceroute `wisdom'.
One problem with IPv6 traceroute is, that Cisco
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlos Friacas) [Thu 28 Oct 2004, 13:38 CEST]:
> From AS1930 (Portugal, Europe): [it works...]
>
> ;; Query time: 544 msec
> ;; SERVER: 2001:503:231d::2:30#53(2001:503:231d::2:30)
> ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:11:40 2004
> ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504
>
> ;; Query time: 547 msec
> ;; S
>From AS1930 (Portugal, Europe): [it works...]
;; Query time: 544 msec
;; SERVER: 2001:503:231d::2:30#53(2001:503:231d::2:30)
;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:11:40 2004
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504
;; Query time: 547 msec
;; SERVER: 2001:503:a83e::2:30#53(2001:503:a83e::2:30)
;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:43:23 2004
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) [Thu 28 Oct 2004, 09:48 CEST]:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:01:45PM -0400, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote a message of 42 lines which said:
>> Since I mailed that, 3557 started receiving a covering /48 for A.
> a.gtld-servers.net works now for us. V
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:01:45PM -0400,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> Since I mailed that, 3557 started receiving a covering /48 for A.
a.gtld-servers.net works now for us. Verisign does not reply but may
listen :-)
b is still unreachable. We get a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Joe Abley
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:02 PM
> To: Daniel Roesen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 support for com/net zones on October 19, 2004
On 27 Oct 2004, at 15:43, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
like 6830 6175 109 7018 26415 (Sprint, Cisco, AT&T, Verisign) but
a traceroute
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:43:08PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
>
> Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
> like 6830 6175 109 7018 26415 (Sprint, Cisco, A
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
like 6830 6175 109 7018 26415 (Sprint, Cisco, AT&T, Verisign) but
a traceroute is going straight from 6830 to AT&T and dyin
On 27 Oct 2004, at 12:35, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:10:58PM -0400,
Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
A few people have asked me privately to publish the IPv6 addresses
ahead of time for reachability testing purposes, so here they
Jared Mauch wrote:
I'm not sure that !S is source route in this case, (sometimes
things are slightly different in the programs from v4 to v6..) but
either way it means a reachability issue of some sort.
!S Destination Unreachable - Not a Neighbour.
Pete
- jared
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 06:35:45PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:10:58PM -0400,
> Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 27 lines which said:
>
> > A few people have asked me privately to publish the IPv6 addresses
> > ahead of time for reachab
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
(!S : source route failed, which is quite surprising)
Filtering of the micro-allocation of the /48? Something else? Other
people with connectivity problems to gtld-servers.net?
This is from 3ffe:401d:2022:b::2 (a /48 served by a tunnel from occaid.org)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:10:58PM -0400,
Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> A few people have asked me privately to publish the IPv6 addresses
> ahead of time for reachability testing purposes, so here they are:
>
> 2001:503:a83e::2:30 (a.gtld-servers.n
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Matt Larson wrote:
> VeriSign will add support for accessing the com/net zones using IPv6
> transport on October 19, 2004. On that day, records for
> a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net will be added to the root
> and gtld-servers.net zones.
>
> We do not anticipa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>VeriSign will add support for accessing the com/net zones using IPv6
>transport on October 19, 2004. On that day, records for
>a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net will be added to the root
>and gtld-servers.net zones.
>
>We do not anticipate
18 matches
Mail list logo
