Hi,
On 02/06/2016, 12:08, "Nick Hilliard" wrote:
>Andy Davidson wrote:
>> My personal website today, whilst of course not a major web asset,
>> utilises a reverse proxy to offer service to suffering people on a
>> legacy 4-only connection. The back end is hosted on a v6 only
>> network, and a
Andy Davidson wrote:
> My personal website today, whilst of course not a major web asset,
> utilises a reverse proxy to offer service to suffering people on a
> legacy 4-only connection. The back end is hosted on a v6 only
> network, and a reverse proxy is dual stacked. It’s a perfectly OK
> mode
Hi,
On 18/05/2016, 14:45, Matthew Ford wrote:
>Many moons ago, europa.eu IPv6 ‘service’ was a reverse-proxy operated by BT. I
>have no idea what the current kludge is.
I just wanted to briefly follow up in defence of the reverse-proxy as a good
design for a HTTP application’s dual stacki
> On 24 May 2016, at 12:05, Bajpai, Vaibhav
> wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2016, at 16:33, Phil Mayers wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/16 15:32, Tim Chown wrote:
>>
>>> The flip side is what evidence do we have that its a problem that is
>>> common enough to care about?
>>
>> This is a fair point. Perhaps I
> On 18 May 2016, at 16:33, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> On 18/05/16 15:32, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> The flip side is what evidence do we have that its a problem that is
>> common enough to care about?
>
> This is a fair point. Perhaps I'm overreacting - we don't get too
> many of these.
I am going to
On 19/05/16 16:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 19/05/2016 15:46, Pete Mundy wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2016, at 2:10 pm, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> I had the opportunity to set up a (small) ISP from scratch, so I just
>>> did it, and made everything native Ipv4 and IPv6 from day one.
>>>
>> You get cre
On 19/05/2016 15:46, Pete Mundy wrote:
>> On 19/05/2016, at 2:10 pm, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>
>> I had the opportunity to set up a (small) ISP from scratch, so I just
>> did it, and made everything native Ipv4 and IPv6 from day one.
>>
>
> You get credit for your website having a quad A :)
>
> But
> On 19/05/2016, at 2:10 pm, Mike Taylor wrote:
>
> I had the opportunity to set up a (small) ISP from scratch, so I just
> did it, and made everything native Ipv4 and IPv6 from day one.
>
You get credit for your website having a quad A :)
But what about DNS?
workstation:~ $ dig ns totalteam.
--- mtay...@totalteam.co.nz wrote:
From: Mike Taylor
'Greenfields' is a lot easier than retro-fitting
an entire network though
--
And both of those're easier than bashing one's
head against the "management brick wall". All
a person gets from that is bl
I had the opportunity to set up a (small) ISP from scratch, so I just
did it, and made everything native Ipv4 and IPv6 from day one.
'Greenfields' is a lot easier than retro-fitting an entire network though
Mike
Mike Taylor
The Total Team
On 19/05/16 13:19, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --- jer...@ma
--- jer...@massar.ch wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar
If they do not have IPv6 it is because of some
"C-level" "business decision" to not look into
it.
You cannot fix those folks unfortunately.
That. And not even C-level, rather mid-level mgmt
that
Hi,
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:33:45PM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
> This is a fair point. Perhaps I'm overreacting - we don't get too many
> of these.
Still annoying. Organizations that make (or "use to make") a big hubbub
about IPv6 should be able to then actually *use* it. Like, use it on
the
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Phil Mayers wrote:
Ok so basically, if more/most access networks were IPv6-enabled (because
big or vital providers are IPv6 only) then all service networks would
have to get it working?
Yes, if it's broken from one network but works from the rest, then the
problem to f
On 18/05/16 15:32, Tim Chown wrote:
The flip side is what evidence do we have that its a problem that is
common enough to care about?
This is a fair point. Perhaps I'm overreacting - we don't get too many
of these.
> On 18 May 2016, at 15:11, Gert Doering 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 have broken or abandoned their efforts.
>>
>> Well, a not unc
On 2016-05-18 16:10, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 18/05/16 15:03, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> The best advice for getting IPv6 fixed is for a large well used network
>> (google, facebook) to stop providing IPv4. Then suddenly people will fix
>> things as they won't have working "Internet" and their users
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 have broken or abandoned their efforts.
>
> Well, a not uncommon approach to discourage bad behaviour is to
> create an
Hi,
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:29:34PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> I wonder when the first large companies are going to ask for some kind
> of 'fund' for getting IPv6 deployed
*want*
(of course, only those would get the funding that have not done
anything yet... "because it is so hard")
On 18/05/16 15:03, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The best advice for getting IPv6 fixed is for a large well used network
(google, facebook) to stop providing IPv4. Then suddenly people will fix
things as they won't have working "Internet" and their users will
complain really really loud.
Ok so basicall
Hi Phil,
> On 18 May 2016, at 14:52, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> On 18/05/16 14:29, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Really, you cannot keep on telling people to finally deploy IPv6, it
>> does not have any effect whatsoever, only their pocket books care and
>> those will only notice when it is too late...
On 2016-05-18 15:52, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 18/05/16 14:29, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Really, you cannot keep on telling people to finally deploy IPv6, it
>> does not have any effect whatsoever, only their pocket books care and
>> those will only notice when it is too late...
>
> So it's hopeles
On 18/05/16 14:45, Matthew Ford wrote:
Many moons ago, europa.eu IPv6 ‘service’ was a reverse-proxy operated
by BT. I have no idea what the current kludge is.
Ah, BT. The obvious choice of provider for an IPv6 implementation /sarcasm
Whoever runs it, they've broken it a bunch of times before.
On 18/05/16 14:29, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Really, you cannot keep on telling people to finally deploy IPv6, it
does not have any effect whatsoever, only their pocket books care and
those will only notice when it is too late...
So it's hopeless and we should just give up?
That doesn't seem like
Hi!
> > Broken over IPv6:
> >
> > https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/281715cafa675bf359ebaa42cb44fa17
> >
> > (Webserver has , returns 404 over v6, fine over v4)
The tech-c seems to be:
otman.da...@ec.europa.eu
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
> On 18 May 2016, at 14:23, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> Broken over IPv6:
>
> https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/281715cafa675bf359ebaa42cb44fa17
>
> (Webserver has , returns 404 over v6, fine over v4)
Many moons ago, europa.eu IPv6 ‘service’ was a reverse-proxy operated by BT. I
have no idea what
On 2016-05-18 15:23, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Broken over IPv6:
>
> https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/281715cafa675bf359ebaa42cb44fa17
>
> (Webserver has , returns 404 over v6, fine over v4)
>
> And yet:
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/ipv6-more-than-a-reality-a-necessity
>
Y
Broken over IPv6:
https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/281715cafa675bf359ebaa42cb44fa17
(Webserver has , returns 404 over v6, fine over v4)
And yet:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/ipv6-more-than-a-reality-a-necessity
I'm sick and tired of people doing tickbox IPv6 and then wel
27 matches
Mail list logo
