Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:52 PM Gert Doering wrote: > > Independent of the prefix distribution mechanism, it may be worth > revisiting > > having a single /48 for an organisation of 4 employees. > > Sure, but if we start handing out /40s like there's enough of them, > eventually there won't

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:12 PM wrote: > We are already 90% of the way here: Make IA_PD work for hosts, not > just for routers. That way Android handsets can have as many addresses > as they want. > DHCPv6 PD is one of the means suggested by RFC 7934, yes. I'm not sure that the folks asking for

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:03 AM Gert Doering wrote: > (What they *want* is "IPAM shows what IPv6 address is in use on which > device in the network", which DHCPv6 would do nicely, including > static assignments via DHCP reservations - while everything else > relies on "IPv6/MAC ND logging on the

Re: Fwd: SixXS shutting down 2017-06-06

+1. So long, and thanks for running the service for many years and making a meaningful contribution to the deployment and evolution of IPv6. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > I'll add a voice to the chorus. :) Happy user off and on over many years, >

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

Brian > > On 13/10/2016 14:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > >> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> But what it says (before I in

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's broken, is all. > "ip -6 route show" or it didn't happen.

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > ::/0 :: !n -1 1 137 > lo > I think !n means network unreachable. Please provide the output of "ip -6 route".

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > I assume you meant RFC 6106 :) > > But why would this problem affect only Android? And why only a very > specific Android version? That doesn't compute... > Windows doesn't support RDNSS. Apple prefers IPv4 DNS servers.

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no wrote: We are deploying IPv6 (soon) and we are not buying IPv4 for postponing IPv6 rollout. Obviously, if buying IPv4 addresses costs less and is higher quality than something like MAP-E, then it makes sense to buy

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote: I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's

Re: IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

planning to deploy is MAP with a full IPv4 address per user, then that's proven, because Softbank is doing it. I'm not aware of any substantial deployments of MAP with shared addressing. On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Yannis Nikolopoulos d...@otenet.gr wrote: On 12/05/2014 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti

Re: Something with filters

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch wrote: 9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.018 ms 79.910 ms 79.960 ms 10 :: (::) 101.893 ms 102.004 ms 103.574 ms 11 rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net (:::65.106.1.155) 104.732 ms Yeah baby, we can use the

Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam since 20140818

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 22/08/2014 15:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: Are you following the Additional guidelines for IPv6 section of https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 ? it looks like Google is trying to enforce SPF / DKIM on ipv6

Re: enterprise IPv6 only client computers and IPv4 connectivity

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote: If an enterprise today would decide that they're going to run IPv6 only on their LAN, they would have recent Win7|Win8|OSX|Ubuntu clients on their client computers, what mechanism would they use to access IPv4 Internet?