In the past we've used www6 for v6 only, www4 for v4 only, and
www has both v6 and v4.
Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.
Which means it is an excellent suggestion for the transition phase into
an IPv6 Internet. Since that happens to be where we are right now, IPv6
On 30/05/2007, at 8:00 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I can't seem to reach www.ietf.org over IPv6 these days and I have
to wait 10 seconds before I fall back to IPv4.
What browser are you using that falls back? Does it require hints
(ie. unreachables, or similar) or does a timeout in
This assumes a single machine scanning, not a botnet of
1000 or even
the 1.5m the dutch gov't collected 2 yrs ago.
Again, a sane discussion is in order. Scanning isn't AS
EASY, but it
certainly is still feasible,
With 1.5 million hosts it will only take 3500 years... for a
Donald Stahl wrote:
If ARIN is going to assign /48's, and people are blocking anything
longer than /32- well then that's a problem :)
To be specific, ARIN is currently assigning up to /48 out of
2620::/23.
I noticed that http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
has the following
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[let me whine again about this one more time... *sigh*]
[guilty parties in cc + public ml's so that every body sees again that
this is being sent to you so that you can't deny it... *sigh again*]
Actually appreciated, as the only sessions with 3ffe
I think what's going on is that packets from www.ietf.org don't make it
back to my ISP. A ping6 or traceroute6 doesn't show any ICMP errors and
TCP sessions don't connect so it's not a PMTUD problem. So it's an
actual timeout.
I also just started noticing this, that is, that it does
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:40:00PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move first due to
lack of content
pure bs. most significant backbones are dual stack. you are the
chicken, claiming the sky is falling.
I'd have to say I
I guess we have different definitions for most significant backbones.
Unless you mean they have a dual-stack router running _somewhere_, say, for
instance, at a single IX or a lab LAN or something. Which is not
particularly useful if we are talking about a significant backbone.
Rather than
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:10:02PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If you like DHCP, fine, run DHCP. But I don't like it, so please
don't force _me_ to run it.
OK, I can (and do) live with that.
I tend to prefer technical reasons to choose a technology (and in
so doing, hope to avoid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Jun wrote:
I think what's going on is that packets from www.ietf.org don't make it
back to my ISP. A ping6 or traceroute6 doesn't show any ICMP errors and
TCP sessions don't connect so it's not a PMTUD problem. So it's an
actual timeout.
I
I gotta say that until I saw your blog I had no idea my Windows Mobile
phone spoke v6. Very cool.
Sean Siler wrote:
I understand some questions recently arose regarding Microsoft and
Teredo. I tried reading through the archives but it has more twists that
Pacific Coast Highway.
Are
I've been trying to collect the info about services (including ISPs and
transit providers) and products (software and hardware) that say they
offer IPv6 (still in the phase of verifying one by one, but almost done !).
Is still not complete, but I think provides a good picture.
Hi Nathan,
I can probably talk about our own experience ...
We started running Teredo Server+Relay in the Windows 2003 implementation
around 3-4 years ago (not completely sure right now). Unfortunately, when
the Service Pack (SP1 I think) was released, stopped working.
Until then it was
On 31/05/2007, at 10:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Nathan,
I can probably talk about our own experience ...
We started running Teredo Server+Relay in the Windows 2003
implementation
around 3-4 years ago (not completely sure right now).
Unfortunately, when
the Service Pack (SP1
what problem is it that IPv6 is actually supposed to solve?
that's an easy one. in 1993-5, the press was screaming that we were
about to run out of ip space. a half-assed design was released. the
press stopped screaming. victory was declared, everyone went home.
and, as usual, ops and
Most of those features were completely gone by 1995
TLAs et alia lasted until 2000+. and i think anycast is still broken,
though we can at least ignore it and use v4-style anycast, which turns
out to be what we need.
leaving larger address space as the sole practical benefit and no
actual
i think anycast is still broken, though we can at least ignore it and
use v4-style anycast, which turns out to be what we need.
recant
i am told by a good friend who lurks that this was actually fixed a year
or two ago. a team of ops-oriented folk were sufficiently persistent
and strident to
At 6:28 PM -0700 5/30/07, Randy Bush wrote:
well, you get two points for copping to it. i lay on the train tracks
and was squashed.
Well, I became a contentious objector... (RFC1669). One can
confirm a real sense of humor to the cosmos, because I now
get to be lead advocate for the very
On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:52:12 PDT, Randy Bush said:
i think anycast is still broken, though we can at least ignore it and
use v4-style anycast, which turns out to be what we need.
recant
i am told by a good friend who lurks that this was actually fixed a year
or two ago. a team of
19 matches
Mail list logo
