On 09/11/2014 09:19, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>> I'm not a native speaker of English, but I struggle to understand it >>> any other way than you're saying there's something broken about >>> Yannis' deployment. I mean, your reply wasn't even a standalone >>> statement, but a continuation of Yannis' sentence. :-P >> That statement is correct though. As Google and Akamai IPv6 are >> currently broken, enabling IPv6 thus breaks connectivity to those sites. >> >> Not enabling IPv6 thus is a better option in such a situation. > > I'm afraid I don't see the supporting evidence here. From my point > of view, Google and Akamai IPv6 both work just fine.
I have to say they both look a bit spotty from Honolulu right now, e.g. C:\windows\system32>ping -6 www.google.com Pinging www.google.com [2a00:1450:4009:80b::1013] with 32 bytes of data: Destination host unreachable. Destination host unreachable. Destination host unreachable. Reply from 2a00:1450:4009:80b::1013: time=376ms Ping statistics for 2a00:1450:4009:80b::1013: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 1, Lost = 3 (75% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 376ms, Maximum = 376ms, Average = 376ms but that may be some other issue entirely. Brian > > I happen to be in Norway, just like Tore - but we are in different > ASes and as far as I know we also use different Akamai and Google > cache instances. > > No specific problems that I can see. > > Steinar Haug, AS 2116 > . >