On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Nick Edwards wrote:
boxes, the box is dual stack, we just need 6yp4 to send ipv6 onto its
ipv4 address - oh and before some bright spark says it, because we
From reading the above, 6to4 isn't what you think it is. 6to4 is a way to
tunnel IPv6 on top of IPv4, it's not a
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:31:25PM -0400, Jeroen Massar wrote:
http://www.azdes.gov)... 2002::cf6c:8846
That is an invalid 6to4 address as it would have a 6to4 gateway of 0.0.0.0.
Uh, what?
Who are you and what happens to the Jeroen I know who understands IPv6,
and knows that 6to4
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 12:49:00PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:31:25PM -0400, Jeroen Massar wrote:
http://www.azdes.gov)... 2002::cf6c:8846
That is an invalid 6to4 address as it would have a 6to4 gateway of 0.0.0.0.
Uh, what?
Who are you and what
On 2014-10-04 12:56, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 12:49:00PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:31:25PM -0400, Jeroen Massar wrote:
http://www.azdes.gov)... 2002::cf6c:8846
That is an invalid 6to4 address as it would have a 6to4 gateway of 0.0.0.0.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Back to my question, should there be an RFC generated that advises network
admins to only put native natural addresses in DNS for anything that is
supposed to be production grade and routed across the Internet?
Meaning:
1. Only
Erik Kline e...@google.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
There in lies the problem. I have received escalations in the last few
days on my eyeball network regarding internet servers with 6to4 in DNS and
NAT64 WKP in DNS. In the WKP case, the
Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com writes:
1. Only make records from 2000::/3
2. Do not make records with 6to4 addresses
3. Do no make records with NAT64 WKP 64:ff9b::/96 ( saw this
last week )
Last time I checked I found these interesting records while checking
Alexa top 1 million
On 2014-10-02 22:24, Ca By wrote:
Folks,
What is the general impression of 6to4 addresses in records?
I recently had a customer complain about this situation, and i am not
sure, as a service provider, how to deal with it.
From my home comcast connection with real full dual-stack, i
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch wrote:
On 2014-10-02 22:37, Ca By wrote:
[..]
Yes, i think .gov requires records. So it looks like DNS admins
are generating records that ultimately break connectivity.
Back to my question, should there be an RFC
There in lies the problem. I have received escalations in the last few
days on my eyeball network regarding internet servers with 6to4 in DNS and
NAT64 WKP in DNS. In the WKP case, the server operator read the RFCs and
tried to pursued me to his understanding of those RFCs that i should
On 03/10/2014 15:58, Ca By wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch wrote:
On 2014-10-02 22:37, Ca By wrote:
[..]
Yes, i think .gov requires records. So it looks like DNS admins
are generating records that ultimately break connectivity.
Back to my
11 matches
Mail list logo
