On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. "we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well, not
using it!"
--
david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
dr...@icantclick.org http://www
On 06/02/2011 12:45 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. "we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well,
not using it!"
It's not Microsoft's IPv6 support they're fixing, which works fine fro
--- p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote:
On 06/02/2011 12:45 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
>>
>> Uh...
>
> snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. "we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well,
> not using it!"
It's not Microsoft's IPv
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH),
it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows
Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (
--- na...@jima.tk wrote:
From: Jima
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
>
> Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH),
it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows
Update or anything
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
"This article describes step-by-step instructions for mitigating
issues you may have connecting to the Internet, or certain websites,
on World IPv6 Day (June 8, 2011).
The following Fix it solution wil
World day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry
failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Andrew
On 2011-06-02 19:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
World day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry
failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
No kidding. We wouldn't want to raise public awareness of IPv6 or
anything. That might take it out of the realm of geeky p
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said:
> World day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
> industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998 and this is
still the closest thing to getting
In message <4de81ada.3010...@jima.tk>, Jima writes:
> On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
> >
> > Uh...
>
> While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH),
> it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said:
>> World day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
>> industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
>
> Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998
It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than
merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4.
That's the path I chose
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have
increased in the past half year but
On 06/02/2011 21:34, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
> increasing rather than decreasing:
> http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
>
> I would have expected the green+azure ar
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
>> increasing rather than decreasing:
>> http://server8.test-ipv
In message , Cameron Byrne
writes:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> > In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
> > increasing rather than decreasing:
> > http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:42, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a
> scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this
> sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an
> ipv6 test.
Commonly called s
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
>
> Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
> to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than
> merely hotwire the system to tempora
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
>>
>> Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
>> to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
the problem.
and your solution is what?
-Dan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:18 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
>> Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
>> the problem.
>
> and your solution is what?
>
> -Dan
As
On 3 Jun 2011, at 10:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on
> actually
> resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with
> additional
> information on how to diagnose the problem, etc.
I would guess a typical
On 3 Jun 2011, at 01:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
> World day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
> industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
The day passing without any significant userland issues would make it a success.
It's a good opportunity to ensure you
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:18:08AM -0700, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
> >Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
> >the problem.
>
> and your solution is what?
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
>
>
> For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
> 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
> in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
You mad
You are missing a big point here, most NL users for example cannot use
ipv6 tunnels because the isp's equipment doesn't allow them. When I
called my ISP (online.nl) for example to ask about it, they first had
something like: what the heck are you talking about. In fact, one of the
only major isp's
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
>
>
> For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
> 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
> in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
>
> How
On 2011-Jun-03 14:27, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
>
>
> For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
> 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
> in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
>
> How do I as
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:01 EDT, Jared Mauch said:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> > The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
> > For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
> > 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
> > in de
Do they have any good reason to block proto 41?
Generic Homeusers never asked for IPv4 so they won't ask for IPv6. The time
will change many things from CPE to perspective as well. I'm not ready to
answer million calls on World IPv6 only week :)
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
>
>
> For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
> 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
> in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
>
OK..
ssage-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:44 AM
To: m...@jaidev.info
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
03, 2011 7:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It ba
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
Something is happening...
On 6/2/11 21:34 , "Hank Nussbacher" wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
>increasing rather than decreasing:
>http://server8.test-ipv6
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:31:57 -, Franck Martin said:
> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
>
> Something is happening...
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
-
The
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and
lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a "different traffic pattern for home/office",
but then you'd expect Friday to
On 6/2/2011 7:08 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
World day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry
failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Andrew
I've had more customers ask and now willing to participate than ever before.
Any better suggestions? Or, maybe take
On 3 June 2011 23:24, wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>
>> There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
>
> Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and
> lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a "different traffic pattern for home/o
On Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 12:04:42AM +0100, Tony McCrory wrote:
> I wonder if there is a disproportionately large amount of IPv6 usage
> in the Middle East where a number of countries have their weekend on
> Friday and Saturday, with Sunday being the first day of their working
> week? UAE and Israel
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>
>> There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
>
> Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and
> lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a "diff
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Jun 3 17:25:39
> 2011
> To: sur...@mauigateway.com
> Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:24:42 -0400
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
It means that IPv6 geeks hav
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:13:31 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong
> Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
> To: fredrik danerklint
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
>
> > The problem is not all on Micr
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>>
>>> There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
>>
>> Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6
>
> Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the
> success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher
> on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall policy
> for that particular phenomena.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/a
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the
>> success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher
>> on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall
>> policy for
In message , Joel Jaeggli write
s:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >>=20
> >> Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops =
> the success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is =
> higher on the weekends than during weekdays,
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
> There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
> customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
> the LSN.
Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for free.
LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core net
In message
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
> 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
>
> > There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
> > customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
> > the LSN.
>
> Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in t
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> In message
> , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
> > 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
> >
> > > There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
> > > customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
> > > the LS
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
> Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried
> to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN.
On France, our bigger ISP charges extra for a fixed IP. Its network
beeing rather old-fashioned, every DSL (and residential fiber) line is
terminat
In message , Cameron Byrne
writes:
> On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message 0...@mail.gmail.com>
> > , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
> > > 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
> > >
> > > > There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
> > > > cus
On Jun 5, 2011 7:15 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> In message , Cameron
Byrne
> writes:
> > On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > In message > 0...@mail.gmail.com>
> > > , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
> > > > 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
> > > >
> > > > > Th
In message
, =
?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
> 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews :
>
> > Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried
> > to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN.
>
> On France, our bigger ISP charges extra for a fixed IP. Its network
> beei
>
> It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off
> by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't
> need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires
> it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently
> as possible is
In message , Owen DeLong
writes:
> >
> > It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off
> > by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't
> > need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires
> > it however some do so planning to handle th
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The
> following very common applications are known to have problems
> with LSN:
> The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes
I'm curious: how does this have any problem with any particular NAT
implemen
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
Increased traffic from less-geeky people = more sane numbers overall. The
problem with the graphs on that site is that the audience is self
sele
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:20 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Owen DeLong
> writes:
>>>
>>> It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off
>>> by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't
>>> need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:55 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
>> You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The
>> following very common applications are known to have problems
>> with LSN:
>> The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes
>
> I'm curious: how d
On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:30, Jason Fesler wrote:
>
>> I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have
>> increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that
>> IPv4 only usage is increasing.
>
> You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everyth
d
> (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem
> vendors could stand improving their GUI.
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se]
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM
> To: nano
g
Cc: frnk...@iname.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Two thing about this one after have read the manual of this product.
This is probably for the american market. I'm in europe.
Second, nowhere in their manual is the word "ipv6" or "v6" found
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 problems they are experiencing,
and then that they can actually access the KB articl
m Manager
IPv6 @ Windows
-Original Message-
From: Jima [mailto:na...@jima.tk]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
> move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
> required.
The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day.
What percentage of
On 6/7/2011 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
required.
The problem here is not content, it's access. Lo
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
> move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
> required.
>
> The problem here is not content,
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
> combined constraints:
>
> 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
> 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
2 has little bear
izational justification.
christopher.pal...@microsoft.com
IPv6 @ Microsoft
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 7, 201
On 8 jun 2011, at 7:42, Christopher Palmer wrote:
> I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long
> time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6
> NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable
> permanent content acce
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Owen,
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
>> combined constraints:
>>
>>1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
>>2.
ore
critical at this juncture than getting the eyeball networks fully deployed.
Owen
> christopher.pal...@microsoft.com
> IPv6 @ Microsoft
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
> To: Lorenzo Colitti
&
.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:28 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 6/7/2011 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
>>> combined constraints:
>>>
>>> 1.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>
>>> Owen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come across the
Cameron,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen D
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>
>>> Owen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come across the
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wro
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Owe
On 6/8/2011 12:42 AM, Christopher Palmer wrote:
I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have
long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are
looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for
Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and
org
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 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
On 2011-Jun-03 14:48, Alexander Maassen wrote:
> You are missing a big point here, most NL users for example cannot use
> ipv6 tunnels because the isp's equipment doesn't allow them.
Which is why Freenet6/Gogo6 has TSP and SixXS has AYIYA because
tunneling over UDP works fine, just like every othe
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> "IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
Tim
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Tim Chown" wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > "IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
>
> It was?
No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where
they turn off ipv4 for an hour on the conference wifi. Ipv
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Tim Chown" wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>
>>> "IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
>>
>> It was?
>
> No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where
> t
On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Tim Chown" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>
"IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
>>>
>>> It was?
>>
>> No. I thi
Owen DeLong wrote:
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.
It'd be a great way to get a point across. ;-)
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclai
On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero
>> motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
>> consider it for more than a picosecond.
>
> It'd be a great way to ge
94 matches
Mail list logo
