On 17 November 2014 17:22:37 GMT+00:00, Michael Chang thenewm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Presumably because the clients are unmanaged?
Correct. It's already disabled by group policy on our managed base.
--
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse brevity and typos
On 2014-11-17 17:38, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 17/11/2014 16:23, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What are you trying to achieve by blocking that port?
I honestly don't know why you want to talk about other things, but I've
no interest in discussing them with you.
Then don't make statements that you are
On 17/11/2014 16:40, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2014-11-17 17:38, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 17/11/2014 16:23, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What are you trying to achieve by blocking that port?
I honestly don't know why you want to talk about other things, but I've
no interest in discussing them with you.
, 2014 11:55 AM
To: Jeroen Massar; IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?
On 17/11/2014 16:40, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2014-11-17 17:38, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 17/11/2014 16:23, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What are you trying to achieve by blocking that port?
I honestly don't know why
@lists.cluenet.de [mailto:
ipv6-ops-bounces+cholzhauer=sscorp@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of
Phil Mayers
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:55 AM
To: Jeroen Massar; IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?
On 17/11/2014 16:40, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2014-11-17 17:38, Phil Mayers wrote
On 11/17/2014 7:06 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
All,
ISTR that Teredo was going to be sunset, Microsoft having tested
removing the DNS name teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com.
(Ignoring the Xbox One stuff here - just the windows desktop
server/relay stuff)
However, my Windows 7 machine is still resolving
On 17/11/2014 17:43, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Any ideas what's going on? Microsoft, anyone care to comment?
Microsoft released an Windows Update for the prefix policy table. The
update dropped Teredo's precedence to lower than IPv4.
Just to be clear - are you suggesting they did this instead
I said:
But if the client has the old RFC 3483 policy table,
:::0:0/96 has the lowest precedence so Teredo would win over
IPv4, which is a Bad Thing. There isn't much to be done about
that unless the user has netsh skills.
s/3483/3484/
Brian
On 18/11/2014 13:01, Brian E Carpenter
@lists.cluenet.de] On
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:11 PM
To: Phil Mayers
Cc: IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?
I said:
But if the client has the old RFC 3483 policy table,
:::0:0/96 has the lowest precedence so Teredo would win over
