* Jakob Hirsch
>> not all of the XB1s communicating have native IPv6, fallback to Teredo
>> is the expected behaviour.)
>
> "documented", yes, but sureley not "expected".
In my world view, the documentation defines the expected. If it didn't,
what's the point of having documentation?
>> involve
On 14.03.2014 12:47, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> Christopher and others => you are RIGHT! Do not change your mind
>> Right abouth _what_? You provided not a single reason for the described
>> behaviour, i.e. the missing fallback to native IPv6.
> According to Microsoft, there should never be a "fallba
* Jakob Hirsch
> On 13.03.2014 20:12, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> Christopher and others => you are RIGHT! Do not change your mind
>
> Right abouth _what_? You provided not a single reason for the described
> behaviour, i.e. the missing fallback to native IPv6.
According to Microsoft, there
opher.pal...@microsoft.com>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>; Marco
Sommani<mailto:marcosomm...@gmail.com>;
ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de<mailto:ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de>
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity
Chris,
Do you guys have any num
Am 14.03.2014 08:08, schrieb Marco Sommani:
One can configure exceptions on Fritz!Boxes too: just go to
"Internet>Permit Access>IPv6". The problem is that they just allow
exceptions for individual Interface Identifiers; no way to configure
a "permit all". I'm wondering how many XBOX users are ab
On 14 Mar 2014, at 00:50, SM 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 IPv6 Inter
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:17:16PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> They prefer native IPv6, but only if all the peer-to-peer participants
> also have native IPv6. So, if all your gamer buddies have native IPv6,
> then native IPv6 is preferred. They do not want to use Teredo Gateways.
> So,
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:44:17PM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Or is it because AVM blocks all inbound IPv6 connection and X/Box has no
> choice but falling back on Teredo?
>
> I am really unclear on the exact situation
No, AVM blocks *Teredo*.
Native IPv6 is permitted according
ristopher.pal...@microsoft.com>
Sent: 3/13/2014 8:39 PM
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>; Marco
Sommani<mailto:marcosomm...@gmail.com>;
ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de<mailto:ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de>
Subject: RE: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity
Th
On 14/mar/2014, at 07:08, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>
>
> On 14/03/14 00:21, "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
I can understand on principle.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de
[mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de] On
Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:09 PM
To: Marco Som
On 14/03/14 00:21, "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 IPv6 Internet Service". I don't
>like what they do, but maybe we sho
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 IPv6 Internet
Service". I don't like what they do, but maybe
On 3/13/14, 15:46 , Gert Doering wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:12:54PM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one --
see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some
security by preventing inbound connecti
On 13.03.2014 20:12, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> I still wonder why people REALLY believe in the security of NAT (in the
> sense of blocking inbound connections) in 2014 while most of the botnet
> members are behind a NAT...
I really don't know what this has to do with Toredo or IPv6, but well.
On Mar 13, 2014 4:22 PM, "Marco Sommani" wrote:
>
> On 13/mar/2014, at 20:12, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>
> > Jakob
> >
> > What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one
--
> > see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some
> > security by preventi
On 13/mar/2014, at 20:12, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Jakob
>
> What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one --
> see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some
> security by preventing inbound connections... This means that there is NO
> open co
Or is it because AVM blocks all inbound IPv6 connection and X/Box has no
choice but falling back on Teredo?
I am really unclear on the exact situation
-éric
On 13/03/14 21:46, "Gert Doering" wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:12:54PM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> What annoys me
Hi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:12:54PM +, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one --
> see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some
> security by preventing inbound connections... This means that there is NO
>
Le 2014-03-13 15:12, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit :
> What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one --
> see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some
> security by preventing inbound connections... This means that there is NO
> open connectivity betw
Jakob
What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one --
see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some
security by preventing inbound connections... This means that there is NO
open connectivity between two X/Box behind a closed AVM CPE... Hence X/Box
h
Hi!
Christopher Palmer, 2013-10-10 03:22:
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/C/4/AC4484B8-AA16-446F-86F8-BDFC498F8732/Xbox%20One%20Technical%20Details.docx
Nice, but why do you absolutely require Teredo even for boxes with
native IPv6? Of course there's the advantage of direct client2clie
t@lists.cluenet.de
[mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de] On
Behalf Of Steinar H. Gunderson
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 5:09 AM
To: Christopher Palmer
Cc: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; Tore Anderson; ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de; Dan Wing
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Give
net.de] på vegne
> av Mikael Abrahamsson [swm...@swm.pp.se]
> Sendt: 11. oktober 2013 06:50
> To: Christopher Palmer
> Cc: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
> Emne: RE: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
>>
__
Fra: ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor@lists.cluenet.de
[ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor@lists.cluenet.de] på vegne av
Mikael Abrahamsson [swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sendt: 11. oktober 2013 06:50
To: Christopher Palmer
Cc: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Emne:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Christopher Palmer wrote:
The thing about protocols like UPnP - the vendors who would ignore an
IETF recommendation are likely to be the same vendors to skip out on
making an adequate UPnP stack. Most people today do NOT have home
routers that support UPnP.
Do you have n
ists.cluenet.de
[mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de] On
Behalf Of Seth Mos
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 6:01 AM
To: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity
On 10-10-2013 14:01, Brzozowski, John Jason wrote:
Geoff,
On 10/10/13 12:07 PM, "Geoff Huston" wrote:
>
>On 11/10/2013, at 2:02 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>>
>>> I have not gathered data on Teredo-to-Teredo reliability. The
>>>connection failure numbers quoted above make use of a Teredo
On 11/10/2013, at 2:02 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>> I have not gathered data on Teredo-to-Teredo reliability. The connection
>> failure numbers quoted above make use of a Teredo Relay. But this
>> teredo-to-teredo connection failure rate
On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> My concern about Teredo's robustness however still remains.
>
> We've been polling users with IPv6 tests embedded in a Google Ad campaign for
> some years now. We were interested in teredo, so we thought that if one of
> the presented URLs a
* Mark Townsley
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>> I have not gathered data on Teredo-to-Teredo reliability. The
>> connection failure numbers quoted above make use of a Teredo Relay.
>> But this teredo-to-teredo connection failure rate in the Internet
>> appears to be a crit
FYI, after I put up a blog post[1] about this topic this morning, there
are some interesting conversations happening on Hacker News and Reddit:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6526943
http://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1o4zuk/microsoft_the_best_xbox_one_ga
ming_experience/
In my post,
On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> I have not gathered data on Teredo-to-Teredo reliability. The connection
> failure numbers quoted above make use of a Teredo Relay. But this
> teredo-to-teredo connection failure rate in the Internet appears to be a
> critical assumption her
On 11/10/2013, at 1:35 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> I applaud what you guys are doing, really, but from my perspective it looks
>> like the reliance on Teredo is really quite scary given what we see out
>> there about how it behaves, and I
On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> I applaud what you guys are doing, really, but from my perspective it looks
> like the reliance on Teredo is really quite scary given what we see out there
> about how it behaves, and I'm kinda wondering what I'm missing here that you
> obvio
On 10-10-2013 14:01, Brzozowski, John Jason wrote:
> Chris can you share details of the brokenness check? What variables are
> considered?
Perhaps native IPv6 on the client with firewall rules that do not permit
inbound traffic. A legit issue that can be expected to pop up.
Also, is there any ac
On 2013-10-10 00:02, Christopher Palmer wrote:
> John and Lorenzo beat me to it J.
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> Samantha has native IPv6 and Teredo.
>
> Albert has Teredo only.
But what do you do with the more and more common case[1] where one gets
native IPv6 and IPv4-over-DSlite; especially consid
** **
>
> *From:*
> ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de[mailto:
> ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de] *On
> Behalf Of *Lorenzo Colitti
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:26 PM
> *To:* Geoff Huston
> *Cc:
* John Mann
> ---
> Even for users that *do have native IPv6 – Teredo will be used to
> interact with IPv4-only peers*, or in cases where IPv6 connectivity
> between peers is not functioning. In general, Xbox One will dynamically
> assess and use the best available connectivity method (Native IPv6
.cluenet.de] On
Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:26 PM
To: Geoff Huston
Cc: IPv6 Ops list; Christopher Palmer
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Geoff Huston
mailto:g...@apnic.net>> wrote:
But I've th
Hi,
On 10 October 2013 14:25, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> But I've thought about your response, and if I'm allowed to dream (!),
>> and in that dream where the efforts of COmcast, Google etc with IPv6 bear
>> fruit, and I'm allowed to cont
Hi Chris,
On 10/10/2013, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Palmer
wrote:
> I appreciate the enthusiasm :).
>
> As a general principal, providing native IPv6 to the end-user device will
> reduce the support cost to a network operator - because gamers do call their
> ISP if they can't get things work
lto:ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft@lists.cluenet.de] On
Behalf Of Dan Wing
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:00 PM
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
Cc: Tore Anderson; ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity
On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Tas
On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
wrote:
> So Xbox One is actually the first (at least well-known)
> device/network/service/etc that uses IPv6 the way it was supposed to be, with
> IPSec?
Apple's Back to my Mac (documented in RFC6281) and Microsoft's DirectAccess
both run
On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47.pdf
>
> Quoting from slide 2:
>
> «Network operators that want to provide the best possible user
> experience for Xbox One Users:
> * Provide IPv6 Connectivity»
>
> Gamers t
Agree kudos to Chris, however, I understand that Teredo still could be
preferred over native IPv6? :(
I am curious how might one participate in early adopter testing?
Also Comcast launched residential native IPv6 in WA state it might be
interesting to get some details around how testing is going
So Xbox One is actually the first (at least well-known)
device/network/service/etc that uses IPv6 the way it was supposed to be, with
IPSec?
--
Tassos
Tore Anderson wrote on 9/10/2013 23:54:
> http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47.pdf
>
> Quoting from slide 2:
>
>
47 matches
Mail list logo
