Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 11:17, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hi All, > > We are developping a new kind of IPv6 tunnel broker. The main idea is > let the traffic flow directly between peers, not through the tunnel > broker server. > > The website of that project is http://www.6assist.net/ > > It acts like a virtual

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 11:51, Max Tulyev wrote: [..] > I think we all understand that any tunnel connectivity is worst than a > native. But still there are a lot of places where it is unable to get a > native IPv6 connectivity even for ISPs. Which locations are those, lets discuss that, find those ISPs and

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

s a mix of HE.net (likely a tunnel) and Level(3), which shows you can really get out of the country pretty well. [1] could just mean that a few of the GRH peers are not properly connected. On 2013-05-10 12:20 , Max Tulyev wrote: > On 10.05.13 12:58, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> If you want

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 16:07 , Max Tulyev wrote: > Easy, just set up the BGP session using 6to4 address space ;) > > Still there are some major problems: > 1. Unlike IXP-like infrastructure, it is difficult to set up and > maintain a lot of BGP sessions ("each to each mesh"). Like an IXP infrastructure yo

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 17:06 , Max Tulyev wrote: > Proto-41 or 6to4 is a point-to-point tunnels in any case. So if you want > to communicate directly to the significant part of the world this way, > you need to set up and maintain hundreds of tunnels, as well as hundreds > of BGP sessions. Also you have to

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 19:28 , Marcin Gondek wrote: > Hi, > > As far it's dedicated for IPv6 PI holder (not always it is a ISP - like me) > which are not a transit providers for other than it's own users or usage, > the idea from NetAssist is OK. > I'm really happy that more IPv6 initatives are comming. T

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 19:55 , Jernej Horvat wrote: > Ivan Pepelnjak @ 10. 05. 2013 13:18: >> >> Oh, and BTW, HE has Tunnel Broker hub in Frankfurt, which is less >> than 20 msec away. Since I'm not playing WoW, that doesn't matter, >> but of course your mileage may vary. >> > > https://www.sixxs.net/pop

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

On 2013-05-10 20:25, Scott Weeks wrote: > There are 5 prefixes in Algeria: > > http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=dz > > > Broken website. The text in the "Image Verification" box says > "404: not found / no cookies" As stated there, you do

Lebanon & IPv6

On 2013-05-13 14:19 , ISOC Lebanon wrote: > Hi Sander an d all, > > As mentioned by Sander all international connections must go through the > incumbent telco in Lebanon That is a political problem that needs to be resolved in your country. Unfortunately there is little that can be done technica

Usage of fd00::/8 on the Interwebz - something with filters and uRPF

... 4 2001:7f8:1::a500:3303:1 (2001:7f8:1::a500:3303:1) 20.755 ms 20.763 ms 20.784 ms 5 fd00:3303::1 (fd00:3303::1) 22.010 ms 21.984 ms 21.986 ms 6 2a02:120c:1051:d010::1 (2a02:120c:1051:d010::1) 17.806 ms 17.889 ms 17.842 ms 7 2a02:120c:1051:d010::1 (2a02:120c:1051:d010::1) 18.

Re: Usage of fd00::/8 on the Interwebz - something with filters and uRPF

On 2013-05-29 13:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Isn't it possible for a ULA to show up in a traceroute because it's > used on an internal interface by a transit network? Possible: yes, bad idea: definitely When uRPF is enabled or other source verification checks are being done, one will never hav

Re: Usage of fd00::/8 on the Interwebz - something with filters and uRPF

On 2013-05-29 23:19, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > I do not mind too much getting packets with a ULA as source address; > not perfect but I can live with those packets Hmm, you say till the day you receive a 100G of spoofed packets... and that is what they are as nobody is able to claim they "own

Re: Usage of fd00::/8 on the Interwebz - something with filters and uRPF

On 2013-05-29 23:49, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> H fd00::/8, that really should never ever be visible on the >> Internet, being Unique *LOCAL* Addresses. > > FWIW this is not unique to ULAs. When tracerouting through AS174, for > example, you'l

Re: Usage of fd00::/8 on the Interwebz - something with filters and uRPF

On 2013-05-29 23:27, Jan Boogman wrote: > hmm, this is the ip of our ServiceApp6 SVI interface, which C told us > has only local significance, apparently this is not the case. Time to > renumber then. Thanks for looking into it! ServiceApp6 is just a next-hop to get your packet into the code that

Re: is gmail strongly penalizing IPv6 senders?

On 2013-05-30 07:46, Marco d'Itri wrote: > I have noticed in the last few days that mail sent to gmail from a > significant number of our servers (both shared hosting / mail relays and > dedicated servers of our customers) with IPv6 connectivity is delivered > to the spam folder. > If there has

Re: Usage of fd00::/8 on the Interwebz - something with filters and uRPF

On 2013-05-30 08:10, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On May 30, 2013, at 2:23 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> Just showing that quite a few networks are not doing uRPF. > > Problem in many cases is that the vendors don't have working uRPF. > > CSCuh1350 I am unfortuna

6PE mapped addresses used for ICMPv6 responses - knob to fix that?

In relation to the fd00::/8 thread, it seems the bug with respect to 6PE is not resolved yet. That is, if you have 6PE (IPv4 LSP) in your network routers might send an ICMPv6 message from the IPv6-Mapped-IPv4 address. And as ::::0.0.0.0/96 should not be in anybody's BGP table, it will fail uR

Re: Point-to-point /64

On 2013-06-01 07:04, Arturo Servin wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to ask which measures is people taking to protect p-2-p > links that are configured with a /64. So far I imagine things like > rate-limiting, ACLs, etc. But still that is a bit abstract of what to do > in a router. What is the

Re: Point-to-point /64

On 2013-06-01 10:41, Arturo Servin wrote: [..] >> If you are protecting against something scanning the rest of the /64 >> where for instance only ::1 and ::2 are configured, you have two options: >> - actually use /128 routes > > What do you mean about /128 routes? You configure 2001:db8:abcd:12

Re: Point-to-point /64

On 2013-06-01 13:38, Arturo Servin wrote:> Ole, > > I know! > > Basically I want to have the whole picture before recommend or not > recommend to use /64s in p2p links (or use them myself) > > /64s in p2p looks very appealing for many reasons, but they have a > counter argument in

Re: Point-to-point /64

On 2013-06-01 14:01, Ole Troan wrote: > > > On 1 Jun 2013, at 22:56, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind though is that quite some gear is >> optimized upto the first /64 bits, and might use slower paths for >> longer prefixes, thus if one is go

Re: Point-to-point /64

On 2013-06-01 15:03, Ole Troan wrote: [..] >> As the subject was about 'security', more in the rule of DoS/DDoS, the >> problem becomes that some miscreants target exactly those addresses >> because they are expected to not forward much >> >> Indeed for normal operation it should be okay, but m

Re: Facebook broken over v6?

On 2013-06-07 09:12, Aaron Hughes wrote: > > Anyone else getting connection hangs and closes to Facebook? Yes, and from a lot of vantage points, thus it is not your local network that is at fault, seems that there are some IP addresses which are being returned by some Facebook DNS servers that ar

Re: Facebook broken over v6?

On 2013-06-07 09:32, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hi All, > > Can't confirm, facebook.com IPv6 works good for me, as well as I can't > see any complaints from our ETTH broadband. > > May be some MTU issue on tunnelled connectivity? No, it seems it all has to do with getting back different IPv6 addresses

Re: Linux 3.9 routing oddity

On 2013-07-02 21:27, Pierre Emeriaud wrote: [..] > $ ip -6 nei show > fe80::f6ca:e5ff:fe43:d114 dev eth0 lladdr f4:ca:e5:43:d1:14 router REACHABLE The neighbor tables are caches, thus indeed, until they are used they won't appear there. > $ ip -6 route get 2001:db8:400c:c03::be > 2001:db8:400c:c0

Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?

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 ha

Re: Linux IPv6 routing strange behaviour

On 2013-08-14 12:33, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hi All, > > I see the strange behaviour of my Linux routers. There are quagga and > bird with IPv6 BGP full view. On the same box? Are they using the same routing table? I am fairly confident that will end up in a fight. > Quagga/bird reports about 13500

Re: Linux IPv6 routing strange behaviour

On 2013-08-14 12:58 , Max Tulyev wrote: > On 14.08.13 13:39, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> I see the strange behaviour of my Linux routers. There are quagga and >>> bird with IPv6 BGP full view. >> >> On the same box? Are they using the same routing table? I am fairly &

Re: Linux IPv6 routing strange behaviour

On 2013-08-15 13:26, Phil Mayers wrote: > On 15/08/13 12:14, Pim van Pelt wrote: >> Just ad a datapoint to Max' last remark, at sixxs we moved away from >> kernel based routing by implementing ipv6 routing in userspace (taking >> tap input and raw socket output) largely because of neighbor cache >

Re: Linux IPv6 routing strange behaviour

On 2013-08-15 14:41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> Yes, that is 5 /40s worth of address space and everything is piped >> into the sixxs interface to a single neighbor that lives on the tapped >> interface. We thus indeed hit t

Re: l.yimg.com (Yahoo!) over IPv6

On 2013-08-19 18:34 , Phil Pennock wrote: > How widespread is it for people here to be unable to retrieve resources > from l.yimg.com over IPv6? > > My telnet connections to all resolved addresses succeed, but the actual > resources being requested never come back. Did you check your Path MTU? D

Re: l.yimg.com (Yahoo!) over IPv6

On 2013-08-19 18:42 , Gert Doering wrote: [..] >> For me, that page will only load in a browser which has IPv6 >> force-disabled. Any other browser, it hangs, never displaying content, >> even after waiting for several minutes, which leads me to wonder if >> the Chrome and Firefox algorithms for H

Re: l.yimg.com (Yahoo!) over IPv6

On 2013-08-19 23:10 , Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2013-08-19 at 15:10 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: >> It works for me, too. >> >> Can you replicate this issue on other machines and vantage points? > > I did, last week when I first saw it, to initially confirm it wasn't my > home connection; at which poin

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

On 2013-08-20 15:37 , Tayeb Meftah wrote: > Hi guys, > i am planing a lab to build a Recidential ISP Platform > i have a tunneled /48 and i cut of 4 of /64 for routing use (OSPFV3) > what's the current recomandation for recidential IPV6 assignement? The recommendation depends on the RIR region, bu

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

On 2013-08-20 16:33 , Arturo Servin wrote: > > I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP > decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). Working for a RIR just means that you are implementing the rules that are set by that RIRs membership. Thu

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

Jeroen > On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>>>It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those >>>> regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 >>>> depends on the ISP alone. >> As prefixes are

Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity

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

Re: IPv6 broken on Fedora 20?

On 2013-12-19 17:09 , Simon Perreault wrote: > Is there any other Fedora user on this list that could confirm this? > > I filed a bug here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045118 net.ipv6.conf.em1.accept_ra = 0 How do you expect that to work? Change to either 1 or 2 (in case you

How to unsubscribe from ipv6-ops (Was: IPv6 broken on Fedora 20?)

On 2013-12-19 17:30 , McKnight, Joe wrote: > Hi, > > I ended up on this listserve by mistake. Will someone please remove me? If you don't know how to unsubscribe from mailinglists you indeed do not belong here. >From the email-headers: List-Id: IPv6 operators forum List-Unsubscribe:

Re: Reaching google.com using Chrome

On 2014-01-13 19:02 , Sammer Mati wrote: [..] > We ran wireshark and found out that the IPv6 address is different for > Google.com when using IE or Chrome! I haven't tested yet with Windows7 That is just pure DNS selection luck... Note that a lot of properties on this massive Internet are using

Re: IPv6-related (?) Bind issue

On 2014-03-06 10:00 , Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: [..] > https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2014-March/092706.html > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2014-March/011385.html And asking on yet-another list, did you do the /64 change: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dn

Re: IPv6-related (?) Bind issue

On 2014-03-06 10:53 , Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: > On 03/06/2014 11:07 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> On 2014-03-06 10:00 , Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: >> [..] >>> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2014-March/092706.html >>> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pi

Re: interesting multicast packet

On 2014-03-21 08:54, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > And Stig, if you are using our 'employer-paid' laptop sold by Cupertino, > then, you are also sending those packets... I discovered this 'feat' last > week when sniffing traffic from my own laptop... > > The use of organization-scope multicast is

Something with filters

I was doing some traceroutes to determine some weird claim of a transit (not shown in the below trace) being "tier1" while another transit actually popped up in their network and then noticed this beauty: 9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.018 ms 79.910 ms 79.960 ms 10 :: (::) 101.893

Re: Something with filters

On 2014-08-27 19:52, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> On Aug 27, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> >> I was doing some traceroutes to determine some weird claim of a transit >> (not shown in the below trace) being "tier1" while another transit >> a

Re: Something with filters

r account managers and technical contacts too. Vendors just do not see what the problem is it seems... On 2014-08-28 07:46, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jeroen Massar <mailto:jer...@massar.ch>> wrote: > > 9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.

Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records

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-s

Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records

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 generated that advises > network admins to only put native natural addres

Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records

On 2014-10-04 12:49, Gert Doering wrote: > 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,

Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records

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

Re: IPv6 address on Safari 8

On 2014-10-27 09:43, Antonio Prado wrote: > Hi, > > some customers report they can't open certain IPv6 addresses using > Safari Version 8.0 (10600.1.25) on OSX Yosemite Version 10.10 (14A389). > > If an address starts with 2A02 Safari complains 'can’t open > “[2a02:ed8:::8]” because the first

Re: IPv6 address on Safari 8

On 2014-10-27 10:22, Antonio Prado wrote: > On 10/27/14 10:03 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> Works here on Yosemite/OSX: >> 8<- >> Safari can’t open the page >> “https://[2a02:ed8:::8]” because the server where

Re: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google

On 2014-11-08 10:27, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: [..] > the short story here is that we're (finally) enabling IPv6 on our > (already capable) CPEs :) And then getting broken connectivity to Google: https://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=general-12626989 https://forums.he.net/index.php?topic=3281.0 They

Re: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google

On 2014-11-08 11:34, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> On 2014-11-08 10:27, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: >> [..] >>> the short story here is that we're (finally) enabling IPv6 on our >>> (already capable) CPEs :) >> >> And th

Re: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google

On 2014-11-08 16:16, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> On 2014-11-08 11:34, Tore Anderson wrote: >>> * Jeroen Massar >>> >>>> On 2014-11-08 10:27, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: >>>> [..] >>>>> the short story here is t

Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai (Was: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google)

On 2014-11-08 18:38, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> The only link: they are all using IPv6. >> >> You are trying to make this OTE link. I have never stated anything >> like that. Though, you likely take that from the fact that the reply >> followed

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai

On 2014-11-09 10:42, Daniel Austin wrote: > Hi, > > I've been having terrible connectivity to Google via IPv6 the last few > days (i'd even resorted to using Bing!), but can confirm it is working > fine for me today. It indeed is looking fine now for the Google problem. Now for Akamai to use thei

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai (Was: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google)

On 2014-11-09 12:00, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> On 2014-11-08 18:38, Tore Anderson wrote: >>> Yannis: «We're enabling IPv6 on our CPEs» >>> Jeroen: «And then getting broken connectivity to Google» >>> >>> I'm not a

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai (Was: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google)

On 2014-11-09 13:12, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Nick Hilliard > >> On 09/11/2014 11:00, Tore Anderson wrote: >>> Only if Google and Akamai are universally broken, which does not >>> seem to have been the case. I tested Google from the RING at 23:20 >>> UTC yesterday: >> >> did you do a control run o

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai

On 2014-11-09 22:10, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Jeroen Massar <mailto:jer...@massar.ch>> wrote: > > >> The issue with IPv6 access to Google should now be resolved. Please > let > >> us know if you're still havi

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai (Was: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google)

On 2014-11-09 21:27, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> Testing from colod boxes on well behaved networks (otherwise they >> would not know or be part of the RING), while the problem lies with >> actual home users is quite a difference. > > So far you

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai (Was: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google)

On 2014-11-09 22:10, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> Also note that the Akamai problem (which still persists) is a random >> one. Hence fetching one URL is just a pure luck thing if it works or >> not. As a generic page has multiple objects though, you&#

Fwd: [v6ops] IPv6 MTU Flow-label.... (related to draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-01)

MTU Flow-label (related to draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-01) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:31:52 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Massar To: i...@ietf.org, v6...@ietf.org Hola folks (and folks in BCC ;), With the recent Google and Akamai outages (latter still ongoing afaik), it came to

Re: RING measurements don't match access-networks (Was: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks...)

On 2014-11-10 11:48, Job Snijders wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 08:46:50AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> Some hosts are behind exotic 6to4 NATted tunnels, >> >> I am a bit surprised by such a statement, or the need for it > > Because that's what it looks li

MTU = 1280 everywhere? / QUIC (Was: Some very nice ...)

On 2014-11-11 02:18, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Jeroen Massar <mailto:jer...@massar.ch>> wrote: > > > Another fun question is why folks are relying on PMTUD instead of > > adjusting their MTU settings (e.g., via RAs). > >

Re: MTU = 1280 everywhere? / QUIC

On 2014-11-11 10:55, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 11 novembre 2014 10:42 +0100, Jeroen Massar : > >> From: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-ev2jRFUoVD34/mobilebasic >> "UDP PACKET FRAGMENTATION" but IPv6 dos not fragment... &g

Re: RING measurements don't match access-networks (Was: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks...)

On 2014-11-11 06:38, Matthew Luckie wrote: >> Also, broken pMTU/traceroute for: >> >> 2a02:58:3:110::23:1 >> 2a01:310:8312:1001::19 >> 2a00:1f00:dc06:11::10 >> 2001:48c8:3:2::2 >> 2607:fcc0:2:1:208:70:247:50 >> 2001:67c:2274:4021::101 > > I took a look at the tracepath information you sent for the

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai

On 2014-11-11 16:00, Emanuel Popa wrote: > Hi, > > Is there anyway to intentionally and immediately get on Google's DNS > blacklist in order to avoid similar outages in the future affecting > only IPv6 traffic? > http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/ipv6/statistics/data/no_.txt > > Or maybe the

How to unsubscribe (Was: Opt Out (UNCLASSIFIED))

On 2014-11-11 17:25, Deal, Victor T MSG RET wrote: > UNCLASSIFIED > How do I opt out of this list? By looking at the standardized List headers which show: List-Unsubscribe: ,

Re: RING measurements don't match access-networks (Was: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks...)

On 2014-11-11 18:29, Matthew Luckie wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> On 2014-11-11 06:38, Matthew Luckie wrote: >>>> Also, broken pMTU/traceroute for: >>>> >>>> 2a02:58:3:110::23:1 >>>> 2a01:310:83

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai

On 2014-11-11 19:09, Andras Toth wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Jeroen Massar <mailto:jer...@massar.ch>> wrote: > > If you expect that they have outages that they cannot quickly see or > not, then you should also expect a blacklist like to be broken

Re: MTU = 1280 everywhere? / QUIC (Was: Some very nice ...)

On 2014-11-11 20:05, Ryan Hamilton wrote: [..] > > Does QUIC work from behind your tunnel? If so, maybe my colleagues > have > > already solved that problem. > > > ​If the MTU is 1280, QUIC will not (currently) work, and Chrome will > fall back to using TCP.​ Thanks for acknowledging

Re: Some very nice broken IPv6 networks at Google and Akamai

On 2014-11-11 20:32, Pim van Pelt wrote: > Hoi, > > 2014-11-11 11:13 GMT-08:00 Jeroen Massar : >> As stated, the MSS clamping is just hiding the real problems. It does >> not properly resolve anything. > You are simply wrong about this statement. There is nothing wrong

Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?

On 2014-11-17 16:06, 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 sti

Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?

On 2014-11-17 17:08, Phil Mayers wrote: > On 17/11/2014 15:59, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> Did you update your Windows edition to the latest service >> pack/fixes/updates? > > It's a completely stock Win 7 SP1 machine, which patches itself > according to Microsoft

Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?

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.

Who is stilll running 6to4 relays (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt)

BCC'ing ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de thus a bit of background info: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt currently contains: Section 4 "Deprecation" 8< Current operators of an anycast 6to4 relay with the IPv4 address 192.88.99.1 SHOULD review the information in [RFC

Re: IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

On 2014-12-05 14:30, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm wondering, have people deployed IPv6-only residential services? I > know of a couple of DS-lite implementations, but we'd be more interested > to hear about network operators deploying either MAP or lightweight > 4over6 (not just

Re: IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

On 2014-12-06 17:45, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 08:08:26PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> It won't be easy to prove that DS-Lite is not being deployed, because there >> are some fairly large deployments in Germany (Kabel Deutschland and >> Unitymedia, both owned by Liberty Glo

Re: Enterprise Dual Stack without IPv6 Transit

On 2014-12-09 17:27, Steve Housego wrote: > First a bit of background, a client of mine is looking to deploy > Microsoft DirectAccess and as part of that we are planning to > Dual Stack IPv6 the path between the direct access clients (who are > IPv6 only) [..] Do you mean that the underlying netwo

Re: Enterprise Dual Stack without IPv6 Transit

On 2014-12-09 17:59, Steve Housego wrote: [..] >> On 2014-12-09 17:27, Steve Housego wrote: >>> First a bit of background, a client of mine is looking to deploy >>> Microsoft DirectAccess and as part of that we are planning to >>> Dual Stack IPv6 the path between the direct access clients (who are

Re: Enterprise Dual Stack without IPv6 Transit

On 2014-12-09 20:34, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:59:05PM +, Steve Housego wrote: >> This is interesting, I hadn¹t came across ?Happy Eyeballs¹ essentially >> they attempt both connections simultaneously - this is great. > > But proper Happy Eyeballs implementations give I

Re: New operational tool

On 2014-12-16 20:54, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Brian E Carpenter writes: > >> http://gabrielmartin.net/projects/hipku/ > > Something's wrong here > > bjorn@canardo:~$ dig gabrielmartin.net Yeah, always silly folks who still don't have on their sites... Seem it uses the javascript from

Re: some mirrors of opensuse-repos seem to be broken

On 2015-04-17 12:08, Thomas Schäfer wrote: > Hi, > > I know you are not the support of opensuse, and I don't ask how to > disable IPv6. (I know it.) > But in the last two weeks I observe strange slow speeds to > opensuse-repos via IPv6. > Unfortunately the tool zypper connects some servers in para

Re: IPv6 Dynamic Prefix Problems

On 2015-12-16 10:40, Jens Link wrote: > Johannes Weber writes: [..] > 5) Use a SIXXS / HE Tunnel Tunnel brokers (RFC3053) are transition technologies, they won't be here forever. You likely wanted to point out commercial VPN solutions that can provide these services just like the normal ISP who

Re: IPv6 Dynamic Prefix Problems

On 2015-12-16 13:09, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:01:19PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> Routing scaling research will be fun, but in the end, that is the only >> real way to handle that situation. > > Dual-PA multihoming works, and has a nu

Re: Ubuntu 16.04

On 2016-04-22 13:39, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a pretty standard Ubuntu 14.04 machine I just upgraded to 16.04, > which means I get a "4.4.0-21-generic" kernel. > > I guess I'm using straight up network manager, because my > /etc/network/interfaces doesn't mention anything abo

Re: Ubuntu 16.04

On 2016-04-22 14:37, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> Isn't it awesome that Ubuntu wants dynamic addresses on servers? :) > > Well, this wasn't a server, this is installed as a desktop. Then you should expect all kinds of

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

On 2016-04-24 11:51, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > One of the first Belgian ISP to deploy IPv6 (VOO) is now recommending to > its Android Marshmallow (6.0.1) users to deactivate IPv6 on their > residential WiFi CPE... :-( > > It appears that the issue is about IPv6 web sites/apps being really > s

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

On 2016-04-24 16:17, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Jeroen, Erik and John, > > Thanks for the hint. I will advise the ISP to investigate any DNS issue > (such as not returning an error message when requesting a non-existing > ) but I wonder why it is linked to that specific Android Marshmallow

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

On 2016-04-26 10:09, Thomas Schäfer wrote: > Am 25.04.2016 um 17:40 schrieb Eric Vyncke (evyncke): >> Thanks to all people pointing me towards a DNS issue. >> > > I read this thread with great interest. I have a Marshmallow dualstacked > via Wifi (and via mobile), and I have no issues so far. > On

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

On 2016-04-26 10:52, Thomas Schäfer wrote: > @Jeroen > Thanks for the definition of router and cpe. > > > But the chain of problems must be long: > > dead DNS-resolvers by isp > > dead DNS-resolvers not recognized by the "cpe" as a cache resolver Dead-detection is a standard thing. Only appare

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

On 2016-04-27 09:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> specifically a 'router' but a CPE (that for IPv4 NATs and for IPv6 sorta > > Let me just say that when I used "CPE" in a document, I was reminded by > BBF (B

Re: push apps failing in Android until you disable IPv6

[yep, this is an off-topic comment, but partially it isn't as it does affect deployability of IPv6 on a device that was build even as shortly as a year ago...] On 2016-05-01 03:20, Erik Kline wrote: > A bug report, especially from a Marshmallow (or even N Developer > Preview) device could be helpf

Re: push apps failing in Android until you disable IPv6

On 2016-05-09 19:28, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Tore Anderson > wrote: > > Even a ULA PIO could be problematic if Android's source > address selection algorithm isn't updated to RFC6724 defaults. RFC3484 > predates ULAs, so it treats t

Re: v6 naming and shaming - *.europa.eu

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

Re: v6 naming and shaming - *.europa.eu

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

Re: v6 naming and shaming - *.europa.eu

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

Re: pxe boot for ipv6 only machine not working on vmware

On 2016-07-01 13:41, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: > Hi Shilpa, > > "S, Shilpashree 1. (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" > writes: > >> We have a case to install machine with ipv6 only using pxe boot. > > bad news for you: PXE as per the Intel specs is IPv4 only. Intel wants > people to move from BIOS (an

Re: SV: CPE Residential IPv6 Security Poll

On 2016-09-21 13:49, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: [..] > There's a fairly large SIP operator (sipgate) here in Germany who for > quite some time has told people that their service not working over > DS-Lite was entirely a problem between the customer and their ISP, > giving technical reasons you can

  1   2   >