On 05/31/2011 05:31 PM, Voll, Toivo wrote:
Going to http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/ipv6/ and hitting Start IPv6 Test I
get:
Your system will continue to work for you on World IPv6 day. However, we found that
your server only supports IPv4 at this time. You'll simply continue to use IPv4
On 31 May 2011, at 22:31, Voll, Toivo wrote:
Netalyzr (http://n3.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/analysis) finds no issues with
my IPv6 status, but alerts me to the fact (since confirmed by switching to
IE) that Google Chrome defaults to IPv4 rather than IPv6, and consequently a
lot of the
On 2011-Jun-01 13:18, Tim Chown wrote:
On 31 May 2011, at 22:31, Voll, Toivo wrote:
Netalyzr (http://n3.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/analysis) finds no
issues with my IPv6 status, but alerts me to the fact (since
confirmed by switching to IE) that Google Chrome defaults to IPv4
rather
Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless.
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:54:28 EDT, Atticus said:
Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless.
On the other hand, if you have a firewall you need to disable in order
for it to get valid IPv6 results, you don't actually have a working IPv6
configuration, do you?
On 2011-Jun-01 18:36, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:54:28 EDT, Atticus said:
Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless.
That is quite what I noted, the thing is that apparently the delay for
clicking 'ok' is taken into account for the measurements
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:14:43 +0200, Jeroen Massar said:
On 2011-Jun-01 18:36, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On the other hand, if you have a firewall you need to disable in order
for it to get valid IPv6 results, you don't actually have a working IPv6
configuration, do you?
The
Going to http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/ipv6/ and hitting Start IPv6 Test I
get:
Your system will continue to work for you on World IPv6 day. However, we found
that your server only supports IPv4 at this time. You'll simply continue to use
IPv4 to reach your favorite web sites.
Netalyzr
On 5/9/2011 8:16 AM, Arie Vayner wrote:
What disturbs me is the piece saying We recommend disabling
IPv6http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArHGqIAYvt_4fpp3N3vLzmNRJ3tG/SIG=11vv8jc1f/**http%3A//help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/ipv6/general/ipv6-09.html
, with a very easy link...
And I was just sent
On May 19, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/9/2011 8:16 AM, Arie Vayner wrote:
What disturbs me is the piece saying We recommend disabling
IPv6http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArHGqIAYvt_4fpp3N3vLzmNRJ3tG/SIG=11vv8jc1f/**http%3A//help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/ipv6/general/ipv6-09.html
Steve Clark wrote:
This is all very confusing to me. How are meaningful names going to
assigned automatically?
Right now I see something like ool-6038bdcc.static.optonline.net for one
of our servers, how does this
mean anything to anyone else?
Does http://وزارة-الأتصالات.مصر/ mean more to
Paul Vixie wrote:
time in Nicaragua he said that he has a lot of days like this and he'd
like more work to be possible when only local connectivity was available.
Compelling stuff. Pity there's no global market for localized services
or we'd already have it. Nevertheless this must and will
On May 17, 2011, at 10:30 13PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On May 17, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011
On May 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/17/2011 5:25 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
My point was that at least in IPv6, you can reach your boxes whereas with
IPv4, you couldn't reach them at all (unless you used a rendezvous service
and preconfigured stuff).
Actually almost
Right now I see something like ool-6038bdcc.static.optonline.net for one
of our servers, how does this
mean anything to anyone else?
Does http://وزارة-الأتصالات.مصر/ mean more to you?
Or http://xn--4gbrim.xnymcbaaajlc6dj7bxne2c.xn--wgbh1c which is what it
translates to in your browser.
Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 04:22:54AM + Quoting
Paul Vixie (vi...@isc.org):
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
reach it by name.
that must
On May 17, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Mans Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 04:22:54AM +
Quoting Paul Vixie (vi...@isc.org):
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200
From: Mans Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
reach it by name.
that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it possible.
I'd like to respond to this by
On 05/17/2011 08:56 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200
From: Mans Nilssonmansa...@besserwisser.org
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
reach it by name.
that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it possible.
I'd
On 5/17/2011 5:25 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
My point was that at least in IPv6, you can reach your boxes whereas with
IPv4, you couldn't reach them at all (unless you used a rendezvous service
and preconfigured stuff).
Actually almost everyone will *still* need a rendezvous service as even
if
On May 17, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 05/17/2011 08:56 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200
From: Mans Nilssonmansa...@besserwisser.org
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
reach it by name.
that must and will change.
On 17 mei 2011, at 17:55, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
firewall traversal
Smells like job security: first install a firewall, then traverse it anyway.
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:49:47 -0400
From: Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com
This is all very confusing to me. How are meaningful names going to assigned
automatically?
It'll probably be a lot like Apple's and Xerox's various multicast naming
systems if we want it to work in non-globally
Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
This is all very confusing to me. How are meaningful names going to assigned
automatically?
It'll probably be a lot like Apple's and Xerox's various multicast naming
systems if we want it to work in non-globally connected networks.
Or perhaps user-relative
Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:56:37PM + Quoting
Paul Vixie (vi...@isc.org):
:-).
to be clear, the old pre-web T1 era internet did not have much content
but what content there was, was not lopsided. other than slip and ppp
there weren't a lot of networks one
--- d...@dotat.at wrote:
Or perhaps user-relative names.
http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/uia-osdi.pdf
--
What about privacy concerns; stopping your every move being tracked through the
personal name attached to all of your devices? Did I
On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What about privacy concerns
Privacy is dead. Get used to it. -- Scott McNeely
pgpsQx7TWOx0s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: -
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What about privacy concerns
Privacy is dead. Get used to it. -- Scott McNeely
--
It doesn't have to be that
On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What about privacy concerns
Privacy is dead. Get used to it. -- Scott McNeely
Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is blown at one level
doesn't mean you give it away
On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What about privacy concerns
Privacy is dead. Get used to it. -- Scott McNeely
Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because
(And I get flamed by multiple people because I put in the quote and managed to
hit send before adding the commentary. Maybe one of these days I'll learn not
to try to mix replying to e-mail and dealing with vendor engineers doing a tape
library expansion at the same time. :) Oh well, equivalent
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What about privacy concerns
Privacy is dead. Get used to it. -- Scott
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Why give the corpment (corporate/government contraction) an easy time at it?
Just like the early days, security and privacy do not seem to be in folk's
mind
when things are being designed.
But more importantly, who has
Yes indeed. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/intarea-3.pdf
-- sent from a tiny screen
On May 17, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What about privacy
--- scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com
Yes indeed. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/intarea-3.pdf
-
Hm, that's a funny correlation to what I have been thinking and talking about
lately. I'll have to read
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
if you put something in the dns you do so because you want to discovered.
scoping the nameservers such that they only express certain certain resource
records to queriers in a particular scope is fairly straight forward.
On May 17, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
if you put something in the dns you do so because you want to discovered.
scoping the nameservers such that they only express certain certain resource
records to queriers
On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:22:23 PDT, Joel Jaeggli said:
On May 17, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
Only if you design your network that way. EUI-64 isn't required.
don't much matter, if you move around you're going get them a lot.
Of course, if you're moving around and getting EUI-64
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Unless you end up behind a fascist firewall that actually checks that the
EUI-64 half of the SLAAC address actually matches your MAC address - but we
all
know that firewalls are weak at IPv6 support, so probably nobody's
On May 15, 2011, at 8:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just
be ok with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-only + NAT64
On 16 mei 2011, at 9:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
I believe that the BitTorrent clients
are smart enough to discard the IPv4 nodes reached through NAT64 and will,
instead, just
use the native IPv6 nodes. I don't see this as a problem and Im not sure why
you do.
Because that way the IPv4 and
Because that way the IPv4 and IPv6 swarms remain disconnected in the
absence of some dual stack peers. (I.e., if the swarm is small and
you're the only IPv6 participant.)
It would be much better if you could go from IPv6 to IPv4 through a
NAT64.
The problem is when the client is handed
On 15 May 2011, at 22:55, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just
be ok with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-only + NAT64
On 05/14/2011 07:39 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Jim Gettysj...@freedesktop.org writes:
... we have to get naming squared away. Typing IPv6 addresses is for the
birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't a
viable solution.
perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:37:46 -0400
From: Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org
perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite
viable to me. dns providers who don't keep up with the market (which
means ipv6+dnssec in this context) will lose business to those who do.
On May 16, 2011, at 1:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 16 mei 2011, at 9:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
I believe that the BitTorrent clients
are smart enough to discard the IPv4 nodes reached through NAT64 and will,
instead, just
use the native IPv6 nodes. I don't see this as a problem and
On May 16, 2011, at 2:10 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Because that way the IPv4 and IPv6 swarms remain disconnected in the
absence of some dual stack peers. (I.e., if the swarm is small and
you're the only IPv6 participant.)
It would be much better if you could go from IPv6 to IPv4 through a
In message 51008.1305573...@nsa.vix.com, Paul Vixie writes:
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:37:46 -0400
From: Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org
perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite
viable to me. dns providers who don't keep up with the market (which
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
reach it by name.
that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it possible.
In message 80660.1305606...@nsa.vix.com, Paul Vixie writes:
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:12:27 -0700
... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
reach it by name.
that must and will change. let's be the generation who makes it
When the RIAA and friends in congress and international chapter affiliates make
it illegal to share a network address.
Sorry that is when we turn them back on!!
Christian de Larrinaga
On 14 May 2011, at 19:27, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I think that the real question is, when will
On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote:
On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical
On May 15, 2011 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 5/15/2011 6:49 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to
SIP phones on an IP4-only network.
On 15 mei 2011, at 6:29, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
And that would be the fault of NAT64, which for all of the
applications I mentioned (and more) made the seriously wrong
assumption that every IPv4 address is looked up in a DNS server.
This brings to mind the story of the physicist (but it
On 15 mei 2011, at 20:03, Jima wrote:
BitTorrent tends to be an evolving protocol, with lots of clients
competing for mindshare; I'm not certain that limitation will remain.
Two years ago the Pirate Bay got on IPv6 in a way that was
incompatible with existing clients that were IP version
e have agreed to disagree on the value of this before. Sorry your not so
popular protocol is going the way of EGP it's just not fit for the
evolving internet and will be subject to natural deselction. I am sure you
will disagree with that and insist every end user must always support
On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just be ok
with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-only + NAT64 networks you're
building, I suppose?
Matthew Kaufman
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 8:56 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6
On 5/15/2011 7:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote
On May 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are
182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken
On May 14, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get
Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
no . So that's -1 from me.
Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.
Matthew Kaufman
On May 14, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get
Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
no . So that's -1 from me.
Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at writes:
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get
Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
no . So that's -1 from me.
Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.
in
On May 14, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at writes:
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I get
Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
no . So that's -1 from me.
Sounds to me like
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400
I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?
is there an online betting mechanism we could use, that we all think will
still be in
On May 14, 2011 9:28 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net
wrote:
On May 14, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
get
Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten
by
no . So
On Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 EDT, Marshall Eubanks said:
I think that the real question is, when will people who are running IPv4
only not be on the Internet by this definition ?
Any 36 bit machines left on the net?
pgpe167pAfCop.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?
Probably never. What would be the incentive to turn off the NAT
gateways?
R's,
John
On 14 mei 2011, at 18:47, Paul Vixie wrote:
folks who want
to run V6 only and still be on the internet will need proxies for
a long
while. folks who want to run V6 only *today* and not have any
proxies *today*
are sort of on their own -- the industry will not cater to market
non-forces.
On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.
For a version of highly functional that does not include Skype,
BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app
On 05/14/2011 01:59 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
dditional carrier NAT in the future.
I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only
applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6
and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400
I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?
is there an online
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 17:06:45 +
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400
I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
IPv4 only
Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org writes:
... we have to get naming squared away. Typing IPv6 addresses is for the
birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't a
viable solution.
perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite
viable to me. dns
On 2011-05-14 13:25, Jim Gettys wrote:
On 05/14/2011 01:59 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only
applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6
and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be
On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.
For a version of highly functional that does not include Skype,
BitTorrent, SIP
On 5/10/2011 12:57 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Your suggestion has two main disadvantages:
1) it doesn't work on some platforms, because input ACL won't stop ND
learn/solicit -- obviously this is bad
2) it requires you to configure a potentially large input ACL on every
single interface on the box,
On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote:
On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.
For a version of highly functional that does not
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are
182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of records.
There will be no IPv6-only users. There will only be users with better IPv6
On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are
182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of records.
There will be no
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
get
Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten
by
no . So that's -1 from me.
Sounds like a job for NAT64/DNS64
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
get Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already
bitten by no . So that's -1 from me.
i choose to only run decnet ii, and the world should fix my connectivity
problem.
randy
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
get Protocol not supported. So there are IPv6-only users, already
bitten by no . So that's -1 from me.
i choose to only run decnet ii, and the world
I think the yahoo test should just differentiate between no IPv6 and IPv6
is slow (test between 3s and 10s). Like:
We have detected that you have IPv6 and will be able to access our site on
IPv6 day, but your user experience may not be as good as with IPv4, you
may consider disabling IPv6.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 23:10, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote:
I think the yahoo test should just differentiate between no IPv6 and IPv6
is slow (test between 3s and 10s). Like:
We have detected that you have IPv6 and will be able to access our site on
IPv6 day, but your user
On May 12, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Scott Whyte wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 23:10, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote:
I think the yahoo test should just differentiate between no IPv6 and IPv6
is slow (test between 3s and 10s). Like:
We have detected that you have IPv6 and will be able
* Tony Hain
So take the relays out of the path by putting up a 6to4 router and a
2002:: prefix address on the content servers. Longest match will
cause 6to4 connected systems to prefer that prefix while native
connected systems will prefer the current prefix. The resulting IPv4
path will be
On 11 mei 2011, at 2:39, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:19 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
For the record Apple's current iChat (the OS (10.6.7) is completely
up to date) fails such a test. It will try IPv6 and not fallback
to IPv4. End users shouldn't be seeing these sorts of errors.
[mailto:o...@delong.com]
:: Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:23 PM
:: To: Igor Gashinsky
:: Cc: nanog@nanog.org
:: Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6
::
:: On May 10, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
::
:: :: On Tue, 10 May 2011 02:17:46 EDT
In message 03c70cde-8169-437b-8394-26f839413...@muada.com, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
On 11 mei 2011, at 2:39, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:19 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
For the record Apple's current iChat (the OS (10.6.7) is completely
up to date) fails such a test. It
:: In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency related
issues
:: they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and
publishing
:: the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their content.
They
:: choose to hold their breath and turn blue,
:: I do agree with you that pointing fingers at this stage is really not
helpful. I continue to maintain that being supportive of those content
networks that are willing to wade in is the right answer.
::
:: Agreed, but, it's also important to point out when they're starting to
swim in
Igor,
When testing, you should take into consideration that people from all across
the world may use this tool, and in some places speed is not the same as in
other places... Latency... Bad linkes... Etc.
Arie
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Igor Gashinsky i...@gashinsky.net wrote:
On Mon, 9
On 9 mei 2011, at 21:40, Tony Hain wrote:
Publicly held corporations are responsible to their shareholders to get
eyeballs on their content. *That* is their job, not promoting cool new
network tech. When you have millions of users hitting your site every
day losing 1/2000 is a large chunk of
On May 10, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9 mei 2011, at 21:40, Tony Hain wrote:
Publicly held corporations are responsible to their shareholders to get
eyeballs on their content. *That* is their job, not promoting cool new
network tech. When you have millions of users
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency
related issues
:: they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and
publishing
:: the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their
content. They
:: choose to hold their
On Tue, 10 May 2011 02:17:46 EDT, Igor Gashinsky said:
The time for finger-pointing is over, period, all we are all trying to do
now is figure out how to deal with the present (sucky) situation. The
current reality is that for a non-insignificant percentage of users when
you enable
On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
:: On Tue, 10 May 2011 02:17:46 EDT, Igor Gashinsky said:
::
:: The time for finger-pointing is over, period, all we are all trying to do
:: now is figure out how to deal with the present (sucky) situation. The
:: current reality is that
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
:: On 9 mei 2011, at 21:40, Tony Hain wrote:
::
:: Publicly held corporations are responsible to their shareholders to get
:: eyeballs on their content. *That* is their job, not promoting cool new
:: network tech. When you have millions of
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
