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

There are also devices that will try DHCPv6 regardless of the M/O bits. My HP printer was one. Tim On 31 Mar 2020, at 04:29, Brian E Carpenter mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: It seems that the router must be setting both the A bit (use SLAAC) and the M bit (use DHCPv6). So the

Re: Realistic number of hosts for a /64 subnet?

> On 10 May 2019, at 07:43, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Thu, 9 May 2019, Doug Barton wrote: > >> It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did the >> guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot of that >> was IPv4 thinking regarding

Re: UPnP/IPv6 support in home routers?

Is that not RFC6092? iirc, that supports e2e IKE+IPSec, for example. Tim > On 12 Dec 2017, at 15:03, Kristian McColm > wrote: > > Is it not feasible just as it is for CPE to come with a firewall with a sane > set of defaults, that the device manufacturer

Re: macos Sierra with CGA address?

Hi, > On 14 Dec 2016, at 11:08, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On 2016-12-14 11:55, Holger Zuleger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just realized that the permanent interface identifier of my MAC has >> changed after upgrading to OS 10.12 (I guess). >> >> The output of ifconfig shows a new

Re: v6 naming and shaming - *.europa.eu

> On 18 May 2016, at 15:11, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:06:57PM +, Tim Chown wrote: >>> I'm specifically not asking about encouraging people who haven't deployed; >>> rather people who have and who

Re: push apps failing in Android until you disable IPv6

> On 9 May 2016, at 15:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > Because if the ISP doesn’t offer IPv6 service, it can’t (or should not !) be > IPv6, right ? It’s not unheard of for an ISP to update customer firmware for v6 support in advance of deploying connectivity

Re: Samsung phones block WiFi IPv6 when sleeping, delayed notifications

On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:33, erik.tarald...@telenor.com erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote: I believe our Cisco equipment defaults to 10 minutes (600 seconds). There will also be RAs in response to RS messages. From the googeling I've done it seems that the defaults span from 180 to 600

Re: Samsung phones block WiFi IPv6 when sleeping, delayed notifications

On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:20, erik.tarald...@telenor.com erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote: I see that. I don’t think the problem is confined to Samsung or that it can be completed solved in isolation from fixing wireless AP router behaviour. At the edge of the WiFi network I also see the IPv6

Re: Cost of IPv6 for IT operations team

On 14 Apr 2015, at 08:42, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: Hi, On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:31:57PM +0200, Jens Link wrote: I told my first customer about Y2k in 1980. He called last week. If anyone of you speaks Cobol the customer is paying $large_amount per hour for fixing his

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

On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and would improve e.g. internet gaming. Right, and a gamer will want

Re: Clueless national monopoly providers

On 10 Oct 2014, at 15:01, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 10/10/14 14:50, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: % telnet -4 www.bt.com 80 Trying 62.239.186.73... Connected to www.bt.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET / Connection closed by foreign host. Whatever load balancer that is,

Anyone else have problems emailing Cisco? (senderbase)

My emails to Cisco people are now bouncing. It seems the cause is a poor rep on one of our MTAs: http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=2001%3A630%3Ad0%3Af102%3A%3A25e The DNS reverse seems fine for falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk But the email bounce (with username deleted) says:

Re: Anyone else have problems emailing Cisco? (senderbase)

on. Changing just one nibble in the host portion of the address makes SenderBase score neutral, so something must be up for that particular /128. When I learn more, will ping you. --a On 9/24/14, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: My emails to Cisco people are now bouncing

Re: Anyone else have problems emailing Cisco? (senderbase)

On 24 Sep 2014, at 18:07, Andrew  Yourtchenko ayour...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/24/14, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: The IPv4 rep for the same MTA is Good. http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=152.78.0.0/16 Would be interesting to see why the IPv6 rep would be different

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

On 22 Aug 2014, at 09:09, Daniel Austin dan...@kewlio.net wrote: gmail are still accepting IPv6 mail from my server - most recent message was 2 hours ago. (they do seem to put most IPv6 transacted mail into spam folders on the receiving side however!) Yes, I’ve had reports of this

Re: IPv6 Assignment for Server

On 18 Jun 2014, at 10:49, Teerapatr Kittiratanachai maillist...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Jens and Mark, Is there any benefit to assign /112 mask ? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-why64-01 tim --Te On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On

Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity

On 14 Mar 2014, at 00:50, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Marco, At 16:21 13-03-2014, Marco Sommani wrote: AVM is not alone in its choices: they just do what is suggested in RFC 6092 - Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential

Re: Over-utilisation of v6 neighbour slots

On 22 Oct 2013, at 06:03, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) evyn...@cisco.com wrote: IMHO iOS obviously implemented the first part but not the second part ;-) But, the rapid rate of new RFC 4941 addresses for iOS has another impact because network devices cannot anymore limit the number of IPv6

Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?

On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:34, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484

Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?

On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:29, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote: ... Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details