Hello,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:27:54PM +, Christopher Palmer wrote:
I am acking this thread.
If there is feedback on the ongoing experiment or our consideration
of sunsetting Teredo, do let me know.
So far people have been quite enthusiastic.
Let me ask one thing... a couple of
What is your opinion about Windows 7 IPv6 over PPP behaviour that i'm
going to describe below ?
if the global IPv6 address of the PPP interface has the last 64 bits
different from the last 64 bits of the IPv6 Link Local address
(interface identifier negociated by IPv6CP), then IPv6 is not
On 2013-07-17 15:09 , Ron Broersma wrote:
On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
If there is feedback on the ongoing experiment or our
consideration of sunsetting Teredo, do let me know.
So far people have been quite
Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch writes:
Windows boxes that are in an Active Domain (which should match your
'enterprise net') have Teredo and 6to4 disabled per default.
Sure about that? IIRC this depends on the Windows version. And I think I
have seen Win 2008R2 Servers within an AD, with at
Ron,
I am too. I would really like to see 6to4 and teredo be default off
everywhere, and people who want it can manually turn it on. If
teredo went away completely, that would also be a good thing.
Strongly concur here as well. One less thing I have to disable on
all my systems in
Hi,
off the top of my head it's roughly as follows:
a) 6to4
Win7/Server 2008 generation and before: if IPv4 address = Non-RFC 1918
address, automatically enable 6to4 and try to resolve 6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com
to get 'nearest relay'.
no idea as for Win8/Server 2012.
b) Teredo
Vista: enable
Jeroen
AFAIK, only Teredo is disabled when the Windows host detects AD
-éric
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+evyncke=cisco@lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-
bounces+evyncke=cisco@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
Sent: mercredi 17 juillet 2013 15:20
On Jul 17, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2013-07-17 15:09 , Ron Broersma wrote:
On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
If there is feedback on the ongoing experiment or our
consideration of sunsetting Teredo,
Jens Link li...@quux.de writes:
as I like to talk to myself
There's quite some debate which approach to use due to operational
practices and MS telling people not to 'fully' disable IPv6 as you
might lose support for $SYSTEM.
I'm still looking for a source too.
There's quite some debate which approach to use due to operational
practices and MS telling people not to 'fully' disable IPv6 as you
might lose support for $SYSTEM.
I'm still looking for a source too. Rumors have it that the Windows 7
roll out here (large enterprise customer) will be with
Enno Rey e...@ernw.de writes:
Hi,
There's quite some debate which approach to use due to operational
practices and MS telling people not to 'fully' disable IPv6 as you
might lose support for $SYSTEM.
I'm still looking for a source too. Rumors have it that the Windows 7
roll out here (large
Hi,
thanks for that link.
big questions is: what means disabling IPv6 in those contexts?
unchecking IPv6 in GUI based interface properties? setting DisabledComponents
to 0xfff? using some netsh-based approach?
from what I hear: as long as you can successfully ping ::1, IPv6 is considered
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 (If
you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed
behind an IPv4 NAT) put into the protocol. One
13 matches
Mail list logo
