In message e230de23-ad00-4f3d-b384-ba52fa7b3...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
writes:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message b53bef53-f327-44ed-8f23-a85042e99...@delong.com, Owen =
DeLong write
s:
=20
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
=3D20
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
Based on recent conversations, I hope everyone got their feelings
expressed... :-)
I would like to ask politely that we stop those conversations (and the other
ones we all have fun with (or plonk)) and let the IPv6 day
On 7 Jun 2011, at 04:47, Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:56:32 +, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org said:
PV it's been a while since i looked at the query stream still hitting
PV importantly and happily, there's a great deal of IPv6 happening
PV here.
Which is reaffirming what
Cisco just published a report saying that bandwidth will increase 400% by 2015,
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2182
That does mean doubling every two years as far as it goes..
j
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
2011/6/6 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com:
I think
I agree, HE's peering policy makes them an attractive transit provider.
However, money and strategy still come into play here.
For example, ISP Z will think I need some peering and transit. But if I get HE
transit then some people may not peer with me at X-exchange because they will
already
On 7 June 2011 10:33, Jon Heise j...@smugmug.com wrote:
Aside from rancid, what methods do people have for doing automated backups
and diffing of router configs ?
http://code.google.com/p/notch/ and it's assortment of tools is something
I've been meaning to look into.
--
Shaineel Singh
e:
Le 07/06/2011 01:56, Paul Vixie a écrit :
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef2:f340
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef0:1de
How can 2001:db8::/32 reach your machines ?
Denis
Ok, so based on what's been written here, here is the list of tools
mentioned so far
RANCID - http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/
Inventory (formerly ZipTie) - http://inventory.alterpoint.com/
NocProject - http://redmine.nocproject.org/projects/noc/wiki
Notch - http://code.google.com/p/notch/
in this context, anyone who is a BGP speaker is an ISP.
/bill
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 07:34:25AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, rucasbr...@hushmail.com wrote:
Please define ISP.
-Hank
Hello,
I wouldn't consider myself a network engineer, nor do I have any
As in sales? Isn't that all they have?
On 6/7/11, Ryan Finnesey ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com wrote:
Does cogent have a true carrier/wholesale team?
Cheers
Ryan
Sent from my
Windows Phone
--
Sent from my mobile device
As in sales? Isn't that all they have?
He probably means who understands the business.
Erik
Sometimes more than 25% of the traffic in our webserver is v6
http://lacnic.net/v6stat/hour_access_log_counter.png
http://lacnic.net/v6stat/hour_access_log_counter.txt
Haven't time to check the details about URLs, countries, user-agents
but I am working on it.
Regards,
.as
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
make additional connections.
Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE?
Owen
Two thing about this one after have read the manual of this product.
This is probably for the american market. I'm in europe.
Second, nowhere in their manual is the word ipv6 or v6 found.
Have a ZyXEL VSG1432 right behind me where the IPv6 works pretty good
Thus spake Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com) on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:37:00AM
-0700:
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
make additional
On 06/07/2011 03:13 AM, Denis F. wrote:
Le 07/06/2011 01:56, Paul Vixie a écrit :
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef2:f340
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef0:1de
How can 2001:db8::/32 reach your machines ?
Lack of ingress filtering on Mr. Vixie's part, and lack of egress
filtering on
http://heartbeat.skype.com/
skype has been microsofted already. small number of users my ass.
probably 7/8 of the users i would see at this time are not on.
randy
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
in this context, anyone who is a BGP speaker is an ISP.
Peering costs money. The transit bandwidth saved by peering with another
network may not be sufficient to cover the cost of installing and
maintaining whatever connections are
+1,
My number is not working at all even the call not switching to voice mail.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
http://heartbeat.skype.com/
skype has been microsofted already. small number of users my ass.
probably 7/8 of the
One of my employees is reporting that Cox told her a backhoe cut a main line
somewhere in the Alexandria, Virginia area earlier this morning. More than
likely a fiber cut I'd imagine. Apparently it's affecting about 50,000
residential customers and has been down since 5 a.m.
Anyone have more
-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:00 AM
-snip-
I manage a network that's primarily a hosting network. There's a similar
hosting network at the other end of the building. We both have multiple
gigs of transit. We don't peer
Is not working for me since early today, first the connection went
down and later the application crashed ... I refuse to switch to MSN.
I'm afraid that soon my monitor will explode if microsoft acquisition
of NVIDIA goes through.
BTW, after yesterday announcements at WWDC I wonder if there are
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
http://heartbeat.skype.com/
skype has been microsofted already. small number of users my ass.
probably 7/8 of the users i would see at this time are not on.
On this topic, it has also been penetrated, by the
Egyptian “Electronic Penetration
In message 8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
make additional
I love how this story was published AFTER MSFT purchased them ;-)
--
Leigh Porter
-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:t...@americafree.tv]
Sent: 07 June 2011 15:28
To: Randy Bush
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
Subject: Re: skype
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Randy
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
One of my employees is reporting that Cox told her a backhoe cut a main
line somewhere in the Alexandria, Virginia area earlier this morning. More
than likely a fiber cut I'd imagine. Apparently it's affecting about 50,000
residential
Consider two alternatives :
- Finance guns, soldier training, refugee camps, humanitarian ground
help and political meetings and treaties to make a revolution happens
in a (more or less controled) bloodshed
OR
- Take a strong position to preserve freedom of speech and wider use
of the
I love how this story was published AFTER MSFT purchased them ;-)
http://plug2play.blogspot.com/2010/12/skypes-biggest-secret-revealed.html
reverse engineering hack was reported back in mid December.
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
http://heartbeat.skype.com/
On 07/06/11 15:28, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well
I'd like to foster a discussion here to better understand this, not rile anyone
up. That said, what I see so far is a representation of those who do not
recall the halcyon days before a rabid profit motive was the driving force
behind ISPs.
Peering in it's original sense is/was free. It was
From: Raymond Burkholder [mailto:r...@oneunified.net]
I love how this story was published AFTER MSFT purchased them ;-)
http://plug2play.blogspot.com/2010/12/skypes-biggest-secret-
revealed.html
reverse engineering hack was reported back in mid December.
Indeed, but reverse
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
So far, it seems to be working pretty well for us. I encourage others
to follow our lead in this regard as it truly does make a more functional
internet.
I concur, and I specifically would like to see a lot more *geographically*
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I concur, and I specifically would like to see a lot more *geographically*
local peering, so packets from Roar Runner[1] Tampa Bay to FiOS Tampa Bay
don't
have to clog up an exchang point in Reston or Dallas; this stuff *will*
eventually
Content providers (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube) will always try to get their
content serviced for little to no cost. The low cost, web-only plan isn't
sustainable, and the amount of Netflix traffic around the globe is a good
example; There's a lot of traffic that they aren't paying for. The
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 10:15:48AM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:00 AM
-snip-
I manage a network that's primarily a hosting network. There's a similar
hosting network at the other end of
Indeed, but reverse engineered and Egyptian government snooping Skype
calls are quite different. Whilst some people may have rather foolishly
relied on Skype for privacy, this is now not going to happen. I doubt it'll
make a big dent on the user base though.
Skype privacy ? hehe, the only
I turned up ipv6 on a 10gig in the Boston market with XO today. They'll
definitely do it, but it might take a bit of pushing on an account manager.
I've also turned up ipv6 with Level(3), and have noted the same incompleteness
of the routing table.
It will be a shame if the majority of
Jima na...@jima.tk writes:
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef2:f340
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef0:1de
How can 2001:db8::/32 reach your machines ?
Lack of ingress filtering on Mr. Vixie's part, ...
indeed. i had no idea.
and lack of egress
filtering on whoever-owns-those-Supermicro-board's part.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Matthew Palmer wrote:
netflow data, I'm guessing we average about 100kbit/s or less traffic in
each direction between us. At that low a level, is it even worth the time
and trouble to coordinate setting up a peering connection, much less
tying up a gigE port at each end?
Correct
-Original Message-
From: Erik Bais [mailto:eb...@a2b-internet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:46 AM
To: 'Chris McDonald'; Ryan Finnesey; 'NANOG'
Subject: RE: Cogent?
As in sales? Isn't that all they have?
He probably means who understands the business.
Erik
I have not been able to find a group within Cogent that sells services
to other carriers. Been trying to get access to a lot of the fiber
Cogent has running into buildings.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Chris McDonald [mailto:copraph...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:52:31AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
What I've found interesting is the cost of circuits seem to not be
distance-sensitive. I think this will contribute to mega-regional peering
for the foreseeable future.
(ie: dc, sj, dfw, chi, nyc, etcbble devices in those
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Rettke, Brian brian.ret...@cableone.bizwrote:
Content providers (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube) will always try to get
their content serviced for little to no cost. The low cost, web-only plan
isn't sustainable, and the amount of Netflix traffic around the globe
I'm in the US -- could very well be available only in the N.A. market.
Manuals have not been updated -- it's running with pre-GA code.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:45 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific chatter
about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically
about our website. Of course they have also offered to assist us in
preventing this from
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0500, Mark Pace p...@jolokianetworks.com
wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific chatter
about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically
about our
On 06/07/2011 01:42 PM, Mark Pace wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment.
It wasn't Radware, was it?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/060611-ipv6-security.html
If not, it would seem that there's no shortage of IPv6 FUD this
In a message written on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Mark Pace wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific chatter
about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically
about our
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:01:59 -0500, Jima na...@jima.tk wrote:
On 06/07/2011 01:42 PM, Mark Pace wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment.
It wasn't Radware, was it?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/060611-ipv6-security.html
We got the same call. I think they just trolled on through the IPv6Day
participants list. They indicated that we were likely to be 'specifically
targeted' as a result of 'putting ourselves out there'. I suspect it's merely
a misprogrammed sales drone spewing fear-infused garbage.
The caller
We too just received this phone call. The company was Verisign, felt an
awful lot like a protection racket. Very unwelcomed phone call.
Buyer Beware.
^1qaz2wsx^
Hehe.. yeah, no thanks - I'll do it myself with our existing DDOS
mitigation. ;)
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 2:57 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ipv6 day DDoS threat?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0500,
On 7 Jun 2011, at 20:04, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I thought the goal was to get everyone to try out IPv6. Doesn't that
include the miscreants? :)
Well, if I was evil I'd be looking for IPv6 back doors tomorrow...
Tim
I can confirm, it was indeed Verisign who emailed me with the same message.
I am slightly disappointed by this course of action, needless to say I am
not surprised, because this kind of behavior is
expected from sales people.
I had a bit more respect for them, however...
-ck
On Tue, Jun 7,
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:18:11 BST, Tim Chown said:
On 7 Jun 2011, at 20:04, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I thought the goal was to get everyone to try out IPv6. Doesn't that
include the miscreants? :)
Well, if I was evil I'd be looking for IPv6 back doors tomorrow...
No, that's when everybody
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, rucasbr...@hushmail.com wrote:
All the whole don't peer with this guy only makes your customers
have worse latencies and paths to other people, making the Internet
less healthy.
Not necessarily. Peering with an
Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] spake:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
This does rather assume that users can access Google/Bing (both IPv6 day
participants) to search for a solution to the problems they are experiencing,
and then that they can actually access the KB
There is also http://sourceforge.net/projects/dis -- The latest version in CVS
is best.
It's a project I wrote for use at a previous employer, which downloads tens of
thousands of configs per night.
It also facilitates easier development of device scripts and their parallel
execution,
We're very concerned about permanently configuring hosts into a non-standard
state. That is one reason our World IPv6 Day fix is only a temporary
modification of the Windows sorting order and isn't being pushed through
Windows Update.
Permanently disabling IPv6 as a solution to the IPv6
Hi Nanog
We are an ISP/ASP in New Zealand, but we have a presence in Equinix LA1.
We are looking for a services company that can store spare router/mux parts in
the LA area, and who can deliver with a good SLA to the Equinix LA1 site. We
will eventually be looking for the same type of service
www.juniper.net is on IPv6
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for others
though
www.level3.com works fine over v4 but shows a 404 over IPv6
www.simobil.si is temporarily unavailable over IPv6 but works fine over IPv4
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for
others though
If you go to www.v6.facebook.com it works, but it seems they have some problem
on their main site. I am seeing some issues reaching them over IPv6.
On 6/7/2011 11:38 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Additionally, we share at least one common transit provider, so we'd
be trading 1ms for 1-2ms. Obviously, if we were talking about a
leased line with any MRC, the answer would be hell no. Since we're
able to utilize fiber inside the building with no
On 6/7/2011 6:15 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for others
though
If you go to www.v6.facebook.com it works, but it seems they have some problem
on their main site. I am
No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and to
the returned by www.facebook.com now).
Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
facebook.com does not.
Google / Youtube records are up and running nicely also.
J.
-Original
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:19 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 6/7/2011 6:15 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for
others though
If you go to www.v6.facebook.com it works, but it seems
- Original Message -
From: John Herbert john.herb...@usc-bt.com
No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com
and to the returned by www.facebook.com now).
Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
facebook.com does not.
And
2011/6/8 Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net:
That's what it really boils down to. How much money can be saved versus
performance. If I'm doing a lot of throughput to a specific network, it
makes sense that I might want to connect to them, especially if that
connection either 1) saves me money or
On 6/7/2011 6:39 PM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
That's certainly a valid approach for direct (private) peering, it's
not applicable to IXPs offering route servers.
In my case, I have to justify the long haul to an IXP as appropriate
cost savings, and given that haul often costs more than I pay
yahoo is already serving up the as well.
Thanks Igor!
Looking forward to seeing the traffic spike today :)
- Jared
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.juniper.net is on IPv6
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for
others
On 06/07/2011 07:22 PM, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and to
the returned by www.facebook.com now).
Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
facebook.com does not.
Google / Youtube
On 06/07/2011 07:56 PM, Pete Carah wrote:
On 06/07/2011 07:22 PM, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and
to the returned by www.facebook.com now).
Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
This is from Sweden.
$ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
; DiG 9.7.3 any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 61742
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; WARNING:
I'll be watching this page probably.
http://www.worldipv6day.org/participants/
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:02, Pete Carah wrote:
www.facebook.com (but not facebook.com) just turned on here too (after
google). another hex-speak spelling...
I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
work, but it redirects to m.facebook.com which doesn't have IPv6.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:19 PM, rucasbr...@hushmail.com wrote:
why don't ISPs peer with every other ISP?
1. For those who can pull it off, getting paid twice for each packet
is better than getting paid once.
2. Your service has a value per byte and a cost per byte. If your
value is less than
On 6/7/2011 17:04, fredrik danerklint wrote:
This is from Sweden.
$ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
; DiG 9.7.3 any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 61742
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1,
I'm getting v6 for facebook now.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
- Original Message -
This is from Sweden.
$ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
; DiG 9.7.3
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:02, Pete Carah wrote:
www.facebook.com (but not facebook.com) just turned on here too (after
google). another hex-speak spelling...
I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
In addition to themselves announcing this, NASA.gov and Markertek.com have
announced there that they're participating with their websites; I'll reply
to this posting if I see any others (and if anyone better positioned to
report on their success posts, I'll pass it along).
Cheers,
-- jr 'yes;
That's because you're asking the wrong nameservers. The response you're
getting is pointing you to the correct nameservers (glb1/glb2.facebook.com)
which are defintely returning records for me :
$ dig +short www.facebook.com @glb1.facebook.com
2620:0:1c08:4000:face:b00c:0:3
Scott.
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:02, Pete Carah wrote:
www.facebook.com (but not facebook.com) just turned on here too (after
google). another hex-speak spelling...
I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
work, but it redirects to m.facebook.com which doesn't have
On 06/07/2011 08:08 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
work, but it redirects to m.facebook.com which doesn't have IPv6. This seems to
be a trend, yahoo and cnn do the same thing. Annoying.
Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6
On 6/7/2011 7:13 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/7/2011 17:04, fredrik danerklint wrote:
This is from Sweden.
$ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
; DiG 9.7.3 any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.juniper.net is on IPv6
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for others
though
Working great for me. Getting to it via HE.
www.level3.com works fine over v4 but shows a 404 over IPv6
Yes, I am seeing
On 06/08/2011 02:13 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I'm getting v6 for facebook now.
www.facebook.com is v6 here, but I see no for the fbcdn.net subdomains.
--
Rémy Sanchez
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
In case there are folks who missed this in the past few years, we will
soon be past the point where IPv6 transit swaps and other incubation
tools are acceptable to customers. How is it that Tiscali and Sprint
can only get together via IIJ? Who is to blame? From my perspective,
all three
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 20:14, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Props to google for doing it right, e.g.:
maps.googleapis.com
gg.google.com
safebrowsing.clients.google.com
Thank you google!
- Jared
... and Gmail, too ...
/TJ
Sorry about this.
When asked for the right thing it does resolv!
$ dig www.facebook.com
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.facebook.com. IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.facebook.com. 30 IN 2620:0:1c08:4000:face:b00c:0:3
That's because you're asking
On 6/7/2011 17:16, Scott Howard wrote:
That's because you're asking the wrong nameservers. The response you're
getting is pointing you to the correct nameservers (glb1/glb2.facebook.com)
which are defintely returning records for me :
$ dig +short www.facebook.com
- Original Message -
From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
Props to google for doing it right, e.g.:
maps.googleapis.com
gg.google.com
safebrowsing.clients.google.com
Thank you google!
Funny you bring up getting all the subsidiary sties right.
I tried to
- Original Message -
From: Matt Ryanczak ryanc...@gmail.com
Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabled but the user-agent on my phone
denies me an IPv6 experience.
I thought I'd heard that LTE transport was *IPv6 only*...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
[snip]
gets a 200 amp electrical service. The problem with that notion is
that A) consumers are hooked on unlimited, and B) your toaster
Consumers aren't getting unlimited right now.
They're getting (unknown number of
That is expected, the CDN is not IPv6 enabled (yet)
On 6/7/11 5:24 PM, Rémy Sanchez remy.sanc...@hyperthese.net wrote:
On 06/08/2011 02:13 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I'm getting v6 for facebook now.
www.facebook.com is v6 here, but I see no for the fbcdn.net
subdomains.
--
Rémy
Anyone with native v6 want to help me test my content? I don't have any v6
access from anything except a few dedicated servers yet. Off list response is
fine :)
-Original Message-
From: TJ [mailto:trej...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:32 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 day
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:31, TJ wrote:
... and Gmail, too ...
imap.gmail.com only has IPv4, though.
This path for 2001::/32 leads to a broken teredo relay:
3257 1103 1101
http://ip6.me was using this path and not working from my client. When I
routing to prefer 6939's relays it started working.
- Kevin
This is amusing:
Tracing route to www.facebook.com [2620:0:1c00:0:*face:b00c*:0:2]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
11 ms1 ms1 ms 2001:1938:2a7::1
288 ms95 ms88 ms gw-383.phx-01.us.sixxs.net[2001:1938:81:17e::1]
391 ms86 ms89 ms 2001:4de0:1000:a4::1
4
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 21:04, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.comwrote:
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:31, TJ wrote:
... and Gmail, too ...
imap.gmail.com only has IPv4, though.
Good catch, applies to pop smtp as well. Baby steps, I guess?
/TJ
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
required.
The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day.
What
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
