> I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-)
>
> IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colons
> (optionally with the longest consecutive set of :0 sections replaced
> with ::). A /112 means the prefix is 7 of the 8 chunks, which means you
> can use ::1 and ::2
On 9 Jun 2011, at 05:36, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 17:37 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
>> Dumb question.. what does the switch (L2) have to do with IPv6 (L3), or
>> is it one of those 'somewhere in between the two' things?
>
> Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not dire
Hi Jay,
Can you correlate the user from the access logs and send them a email that
their IPv6 internet is not working correctly?
Regards,
Seth
Op 9 jun 2011, om 05:03 heeft Jay Ashworth het volgende geschreven:
> """
> World IPv6 Day came to an end earlier today. We successfully enabled IPv6
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think
that NAT64 is as bad as other LSNs and here's why:
NAT64 scales much bette
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 17:37 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
> Dumb question.. what does the switch (L2) have to do with IPv6 (L3), or
> is it one of those 'somewhere in between the two' things?
Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not directly IPv6 aware,
but it won't understand multicast a
On 08/06/2011 22:58, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:48:52PM -0400, Joly MacFie wrote:
What seems evident, looking at
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/06/monitoring-world-ipv6-day/ is that a
lot of folks switched it on - and then switched it off again pretty damn
quick!
I'd
IPv6 has its own ethertype. (0x86DD) see the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtherType
We've also encountered old IOSes that didn't forward Ethernet frames
that contained IPv6 payload.
On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Dumb question.. what does the switch (L2) have to do with IPv
On 6/8/2011 9:51 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig
with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on
another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.)
Just kind of curious how they go about it.
Do they issue yo
Dumb question.. what does the switch (L2) have to do with IPv6 (L3), or
is it one of those 'somewhere in between the two' things?
Paul
On 6/8/2011 1:08 PM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
Well, that's another problem.
To make a long story short, the network (not mine and I don't have any kind of
co
Not cook islands. I am in Hawaii though so not a huge distance away.
I'd got dual boot debian/windows and I had the tzlocation set wrong
under Debian (GMT instead of local time). Boot back into Windows to
test something and sent a few e-mails without noticing the time stamp
was wrong.
Paul
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> Now, as to why they'd choose a /112 (65k addresses) for the interface
> between customer and ISP, that's a complete mystery to me.
I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-)
IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colon
"""
World IPv6 Day came to an end earlier today. We successfully enabled IPv6 on
our site for 24 hours, with great results. We saw over 1 million users reach us
over IPv6.
We’re pleased that we did not see any increase in the number of users seeking
help from our Help Center. The estimated 0.03
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Kelly Setzer wrote:
> IPv6 newbie alert!
>
> I thought the maximum prefix length for IPv6 was 64 bits,
> so the comment about a v6 /112 for peering vexed me. I
> have Googled so much that Larry Page called me and
> asked me to stop.
>
> Can someone please point me
> -Original Message-
> From: r...@u13.net [mailto:r...@u13.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent IPv6
>
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:51:21 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
> > I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a
>
On 06/08/11 18:32, Jared Mauch wrote:
MYTHS:
TCP/53 is only for zone transfers ICMP is a security risk/ddos
avenue Internal networks must be secured with NAT A firewall is the
only way to secure the perimiter
In fact for IPv6, ICMP is more important vs less. Firewalls
frequently harm and don'
We (Mozilla) intend to keep the properties[1] we enabled online
and will continue to roll out to our entire infrastructure as it
permits.
We hit some vendor issues which prevented us from having a larger
showing, sadly.
-r
[1] http://www.mozilla.com/
http://www.mozilla.org/
http://wiki.
Thanks to all the v6day participants on all sides of the net. This has been
a great effort that will eventually be a precedent for all a major sites to
go dual stack with confidence as bugs are shaken out, access networks are
enabled, and meaningful data is collected and processed.
Cb
PS. Speci
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's *never* been a good idea let alone a best idea however it was
> the only solution to a problem in the last millinium and really
> should only be deploy to protect those 20 year old boxes that still
> have that problem.
>
> Way to much of sec
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and even
>>> begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not "the same thing".
>> I
In message
, Ray Soucy
writes:
> Just grabbed the Trial and tested it.
>
> Verified that IPv6 is used for World of Warcraft on the Antonidas
> server. It works pretty well actually.
>
> I see they replicated their practice of dropping all ICMP traffic for
> IPv6. Not sure that's the best ide
I think it's important to thank Microsoft for leaving sites like xbox IPv6
enabled. Hope many other participants leave it on as well.
I think it's a certain sign of the maturity of the protocol and networks at
this stage of the game.
I have observed some traffic step-down in the network, but i
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and
even begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not "the same thing".
I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this d
I dont think ISOC dashboard is updating any more. Google is no longer
advertising but dashboard still shows green and TTLs were short on
those records.
\\
; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> www.google.com in
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERR
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:18 AM, r...@u13.net wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:51:21 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
>> I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig
>>
>> with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it
>> on
>> another 100Mb/s circuit we
Sent from my iPad
On 2011-06-08, at 5:09 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Matt Ryanczak"
>>
>>> Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabled but the user-agent on my phone
>>> denies me an IPv6 experience.
>>
>>
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and
>> even begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not "the same thing".
>
> I'm ready, willing
>
> Leslie Daigle and Vint Cerf are on the News Hour tonight about World IPv6
> Day. Watch it if you get a chance. They did a great job!
>
CJ
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> So if you are using a Netscaler with SLB-PT (IPv6 VIP balancing to
>>> IPv4 servers), the entire LB is subject to stop working until they get
>>> this fixed.
>>
>> And this is EXACTLY why we needed World IPv6 Day.
>
> Agreed, right on the mon
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Hi,
I wrote that reply the hour your email came in, but didn't want
to send this out earlier to not distract people too much.
> FreeBSD is initiating IPv6-only validation work
I think that's a less scary topic to some readers so I put it into
sub
>> So if you are using a Netscaler with SLB-PT (IPv6 VIP balancing to
>> IPv4 servers), the entire LB is subject to stop working until they get
>> this fixed.
>
> And this is EXACTLY why we needed World IPv6 Day.
Agreed, right on the money !!
Traffic stats may not say a lot yet due to tunnels and
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:51, Nick Olsen wrote:
> I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig
> with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on
> another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.)
> Just kind of curious how they go about it.
>
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 01:27:57 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
That what I found with most the open source /Linux mail products
that
customizing and extending can be difficult and a lot of time and
effort.
The exchange is one of the easiest ways to roll out large scale web
base
email if just e
Well, that's another problem.
To make a long story short, the network (not mine and I don't have any kind of
control over that either) that my customers (including me) are using, did put
in new equipment (a switch) over a year ago and after that I lost my IPv6
connection that I had previously.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and
> even begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not "the same thing".
I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion
begging to pee
On 6/8/2011 3:31 PM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
How about that one?
(Please reply to the mailing list only)
You wouldn't be posting to the list... :-)
Received: from [77.105.232.43] (port=53699 helo=fredan-pc.localnet)
by mail.fredan.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for
>> Cogent (IIRC), to no avail.
>>
>> But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues
>>
How about that one?
(Please reply to the mailing list only)
--
//fredan
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Andrews"
> > It certainly sounds like it might be.
>
> I would do perhaps do one more then do "IPv6 TURN ON DAY" with the
> intent to *leave* the IPv6 enabled. The longer the content providers
> take to switch it on the bigger the switch on load will be
On 6/8/2011 6:18 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, George B. wrote:
Was participating until we hit a rather nasty load balancer bug that
took out the entire unit if clients with a short MTU connected and it
needed to fragment packets (Citrix Netscaler running latest cod
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, George B. wrote:
> Was participating until we hit a rather nasty load balancer bug that
> took out the entire unit if clients with a short MTU connected and it
> needed to fragment packets (Citrix Netscaler running latest code). No
> fix is available for it yet, so we
In message <24415722.168.1307544055966.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com>, Jay
Ashworth writes:
> It certainly sounds like it might be.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
I would do perhaps do one more then do "IPv6 TURN ON DAY" with the
intent to *leave* the IPv6 enabled. The longer the content providers
For what it's worth, we have a number of IPv6 peers in place plus IPv6
transit from Level(3), HE, and TiNet.
For downstream customers, we are currently exporting them 6250 prefixes on
IPv6.
>From TiNet we are getting 6168 prefixes
>From Level(3) we are getting 4933 prefixes
>From HE we are getti
On Jun 7, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Matt Ryanczak"
>
>> Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabled but the user-agent on my phone
>> denies me an IPv6 experience.
>
> I thought I'd heard that LTE transport was *IPv6 only*...
you may have but it's wr
- Original Message -
> From: "Jérôme Nicolle"
> Second, it's beeing a little too transparent as the MAC adress may
> reveal the server's manufacturer, approximate manufacturing tdate, or
> the network controler model. Some may use it as a clue to design a
> proper exploit...
Security by
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:48:52PM -0400, Joly MacFie wrote:
> What seems evident, looking at
> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/06/monitoring-world-ipv6-day/ is that a
> lot of folks switched it on - and then switched it off again pretty damn
> quick!
I'd attribute that spike to "people active
I am having issues with Youtube getting stuck in i2.ytimg.com - the page
comes up, a black box for the video but then hangs on i1 or i2.ytimg.com
on in Firefox - not IE). IPv6 related? I have tried via 2 different ISPs
and all show the same black box.
-Hank
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Or peer with HE and buy transit from Cogent (or someone on Cogent's friendly
> list) - this is where I think their strategy is going to go after a while
> with a lot of folks (if they have the option - that's the key). HE will
> peer with anyo
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:28:40 -0700, Jeroen Massar wrote:
It is really nice that folks where able to put records on their
websites for only 24 hours, but they forgot to put in the glue on their
nameservers.
As such, for the folks testing IPv6-only, a lot of sites will fail
unless they use
On 6/8/2011 3:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! :/
Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves
of the ipv6 internets!"
No, you buy from the provider who doesn't get in disputes and peers wit
Or peer with HE and buy transit from Cogent (or someone on Cogent's friendly
list) - this is where I think their strategy is going to go after a while
with a lot of folks (if they have the option - that's the key). HE will
peer with anyone I believe - Cogent has much more stringent "tier1" rules o
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me!
> :/
>
> Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves
> of the ipv6 internets!"
Or neither. There are other networks that carry a full IP
Agree 100% - to make it simple and they can both achieve this "IPv6 Tier1
Status" why don't they just peer and then it's win/win. I know I'm
oversimplifying it but nobody is winning in my opinion today. The "peeing
contest" could probably be settled in a short period of time and move on.
My two
On 6/8/2011 3:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the
strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue
considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt
to "blame" one party for this iss
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> What seems evident, looking at
> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/06/monitoring-world-ipv6-day/ is that a
> lot of folks switched it on - and then switched it off again pretty damn
> quick!
Or ... folks switched it on and then it switched i
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said:
>global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their
>strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to
>be an "IPv6 Tier 1").
>
>I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness o
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:02:14PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
>> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent
>> (IIRC), to no avail.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
ObMeme[tm]: cake was a lie?
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for
> Cogent (IIRC), to no avail.
>
> But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues
> with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone els
> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent
> (IIRC), to no avail.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/8/11 3:48 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent
> (IIRC), to no avail.
>
> But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues with v4
> over the past few years has bee
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:43:23 -0500, "Dennis Burgess"
wrote:
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else!
Dennis
Correct, The only way around this currently is to peer with both cogent and
HE.
If you have cogent, You can 6to4 w/BGP with HE. I would consider that just
a patch for the problem. I would do it just for the reachablility.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
--
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Jeroen Massar wrote:
:: It is really nice that folks where able to put records on their
:: websites for only 24 hours, but they forgot to put in the glue on their
:: nameservers.
::
:: As such, for the folks testing IPv6-only, a lot of sites will fail
:: unless they use a
What seems evident, looking at
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/06/monitoring-world-ipv6-day/ is that a
lot of folks switched it on - and then switched it off again pretty damn
quick!
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
W
Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent (IIRC),
to no avail.
But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues with v4 over
the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else.
Brielle
--Original Message--
From: Dennis Burgess
To: nanog@n
On 6/8/2011 12:43, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
> and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
>
> Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
> NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else!
>
Cogent and HE don'
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else!
Dennis
Are you really on Cook Island in the Pacific or is your email headers
date timezone string set incorrectly -1000. Your message won't be read
by me until tonight shortly after 12:19 am. Sadly you'll miss IPv6 day :(
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 6/9/201
The ISOC dashboard that Chris mentions is indeed accurate and up to date
from our perspective. Comcast is definitely an active participant with
our website http://xfinity.comcast.net, which is live with a published
and is IPv6 reachable.
Thanks
--
Chris Griffiths
Comcast Cable Communications
> ...yes, there is a serious lack of v6 enabled eyeballs. But it's also
> not clear to me from Akamai's stats just how many of the sites they host
> are v6 enabled. 2? 12? 500?
True. I'll go back to their site and dig for more detailed info about
what those "hits" are actually hitting.
Regards
J
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:22 58PM,
wrote:
> No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and to
> the returned by www.facebook.com now).
>
> Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
> "facebook.com" does not.
>
> Google / Youtube records
I've done the same at home, HE tunnel for IPv6. I've got a Linksys
WRT54GL running DD-WRT so getting it set up was relatively straight
forward though I really need to fix the automatic startup script that's
misbehaving.
Work was another matter, one big headache, to the point where I'm
wonderin
-Original Message-
From: Jorge Amodio [mailto:jmamo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:01 PM
To: Lucy Lynch
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: on various websites, but they all forgot to enable
them on their nameservers
>>> http://www.mrp.net/IPv6Day.html
>>
>> The w
I notice that that page currently lists as http://www.bbc.co.uk/ as
unreachable via IPv4 ! ?
j
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> ISOC has a red/green dashboard of individual (non)participants:
> http://www.worldipv6day.org/participant-websites/index.html
>
> Cheers,
> ~
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 08:25:59PM +, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
> Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] spake:
> >http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
> >Uh...
>
> This does rather assume that users can access Google/Bing (both IPv6
> day participants) to search for a solution to the p
>
>
> You shouldn't. The matter of the fact is that for al leats 24 hours users
> like you and me ... all we can reach the main Webpages for each participant
> in the ipv6 day.
>
> The idea is that this must be all in a transparent manner for the final
> users. If you have an IPv6 supported insfras
On 6/8/11 1:29 AM, Neil Long wrote:
>
> On 8 Jun 2011, at 02:13, TJ wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 21:04, Iljitsch van Beijnum
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 jun 2011, at 2:31, TJ wrote:
>>>
... and Gmail, too ...
>>>
>>> imap.gmail.com only has IPv4, though.
>>>
>>
>> Good catch, applies to pop
Just grabbed the Trial and tested it.
Verified that IPv6 is used for World of Warcraft on the Antonidas
server. It works pretty well actually.
I see they replicated their practice of dropping all ICMP traffic for
IPv6. Not sure that's the best idea.
Anyone know if they plan to leave it working
>>> http://www.mrp.net/IPv6Day.html
>>
>> The web access column reflects access to internal content or just the
>> home page ?
>
> Mark's notes explain what he tested and clicking on any link shows
> the result of his diagnostics:
>
> http://www.mrp.net//IPv6Day_files/diagnostics/aol.com.html
>
> g
Was participating until we hit a rather nasty load balancer bug that
took out the entire unit if clients with a short MTU connected and it
needed to fragment packets (Citrix Netscaler running latest code). No
fix is available for it yet, so we had to shut it down. Ran for about
9 hours before the
The list of TownNews domains participating can be found here:
http://www.townnews365.com/ipv6/
> ahwatukee.com
> alpineavalanche.com
> anchoragepress.com
> aransaspassprogress.com
> argus-press.com
> auburnpub.com
> azdailysun.com
> banderabulletin.com
> beatricedailysun.com
> belgrade-news.com
The list of TownNews domains participating can be found here:
http://www.townnews365.com/ipv6/
-mjf
-Original Message-
From: James Harr [mailto:james.h...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:00 PM
To: nanog
Subject: IPv6 day non-participants
I noticed that one of our vendors
On 2011-Jun-08 17:26, STARNES, CURTIS wrote:
> Typical long trip via a sixxs.net tunnel. Unlike Hurricane Electric
> (tunnelbroker.net), Sixxs has no US peering that I know of so
> everything has to hit overseas before returning back.
psst.. there is no such thing as "SixXS peering".
Each PoP (ht
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Jorge Amodio wrote:
http://www.mrp.net/IPv6Day.html
The web access column reflects access to internal content or just the
home page ?
Mark's notes explain what he tested and clicking on any link shows
the result of his diagnostics:
http://www.mrp.net//IPv6Day_files/diagn
ISOC has a red/green dashboard of individual (non)participants:
http://www.worldipv6day.org/participant-websites/index.html
Cheers,
~Chris
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 09:59, James Harr wrote:
> I noticed that one of our vendors wasn't actually participating when
> they very publicly put on their home
Sounds good to me.
---
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
> http://www.mrp.net/IPv6Day.html
The web access column reflects access to internal content or just the
home page ?
-J
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:47:43 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
> For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability
> to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN.
The cynic in me says that guarantees widespread deployment of LSN. :)
pgpfiixYhziVp.pgp
De
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Daniel Espejel wrote:
Hi.
The main objective for today is to access the web services, that's why you
can't reach a record for a DNS query for a given NS server.
exactly - this site provides a nice service snapshot:
http://www.mrp.net/IPv6Day.html
; <<>> DiG 9.5.1-
> The main objective for today is to access the web services, that's why you
> can't reach a record for a DNS query for a given NS server.
So if there are no records from where we ftp6 the HOSTSV6.TXT file ?
-J
I noticed that one of our vendors wasn't actually participating when
they very publicly put on their home page that they would. So I
queried the IPv6 day participation list to see who didn't have 's
for their listed website. It turned out to be around 9.5%
Before you read the list, here's me s
Hi.
The main objective for today is to access the web services, that's why you
can't reach a record for a DNS query for a given NS server.
; <<>> DiG 9.5.1-P3 <<>> www.google.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40029
;; fl
In a message written on Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
> It certainly sounds like it might be.
Why not just leave it on?
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgpIjcDqkdO3d.pgp
Description: PGP signa
On 8 Jun 2011, at 16:30, Jay Ford wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Neil Long wrote:
Top of the page it says (now, may have been added)
"Note: This top level web page has been setup to test IPv6
capabilities and to participate in World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011.
This IPv6 web page will be disabled
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Rob V wrote:
> Interesting ... I seem to stay in North America ... I guess it depends what
> POP you connect to?
>
> traceroute6 to nist.gov (2610:20:6060:aa::a66b) from
> 2001:4978::fe67:cafa, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
> 1 2001:::1 1.147 ms 0.461 ms 0.413
+1
I've enjoyed it so far!
On 08/06/2011 16:07, Ryan Pavely wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. Good call :)
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 6/8/2011 10:40 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It certainly sounds like it might be.
Cheers,
-- jra
Good catch -- I traveled the world and back today on v6! Overall though the
day seems to be going well, I've sparked a lot of enthusiasm at work by
bragging this event (I even made a shirt to promote it :-), and I'd love to see
this become a regular occurrence.
David.
- Original Message -
Interesting ... I seem to stay in North America ... I guess it depends what
POP you connect to?
traceroute6 to nist.gov (2610:20:6060:aa::a66b) from
2001:4978::fe67:cafa, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
1 2001:::1 1.147 ms 0.461 ms 0.413 ms
2 gw-525.chi-02.us.sixxs.net 30.235 ms 30.380 ms 3
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Neil Long wrote:
Top of the page it says (now, may have been added)
"Note: This top level web page has been setup to test IPv6 capabilities and
to participate in World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011. This IPv6 web page will be
disabled after the end of World IPv6 Day. Links on thi
Typical long trip via a sixxs.net tunnel.
Unlike Hurricane Electric (tunnelbroker.net), Sixxs has no US peering that I
know of so everything has to hit overseas before returning back.
Curtis.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, J
On 8 Jun 2011, at 07:15, Andrew Koch wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 00:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
BTW, how are you guys dealing with path MTU discovery for IPv6?
I've seen a few sites that have problems with this, such as www.nist.gov
, >
Speaking of www.nist.gov, I am getting the f
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
