On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:38:54AM -0400, David Swafford wrote:
Overall though the day seems to be going well, I've sparked a
lot of enthusiasm at work by bragging this event (I even made a
shirt to promote it :-), and I'd love to see this become a
regular occurrence.
In fact, daily would be
On 8 jun 2011, at 7:42, Christopher Palmer wrote:
I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long
time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6
NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable
permanent content access
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 00:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com wrote:
BTW, how are you guys dealing with path MTU discovery for IPv6? I've seen a
few sites that have problems with this, such as www.nist.gov,
Speaking of www.nist.gov, I am getting the front page to load, but all
links
On 8 jun 2011, at 8:15, Andrew Koch wrote:
Speaking of www.nist.gov, I am getting the front page to load, but all
links are returning a 404 Not Found when browsing via v6
Right. They seem to have solved their PMTUD issues, though.
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
combined constraints:
1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
2.
: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote
Interesting, I'm having that same issue w/ www.nist.gov this morning. Front
page loads fine, but all links return a 404. Here's my tracert if it
helps:
tracert www.nist.gov
Tracing route to nist.gov [2610:20:6060:aa::a66b]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
11 ms1 ms1 ms
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:28 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 6/7/2011 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
combined constraints:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
LSN is required when
Cameron,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
On 6/8/2011 12:42 AM, Christopher Palmer wrote:
I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have
long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are
looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for
Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:33 AM, David Swafford da...@davidswafford.com wrote:
Interesting, I'm having that same issue w/ www.nist.gov this morning. Front
page loads fine, but all links return a 404. Here's my tracert if it
helps:
tracert www.nist.gov
Tracing route to nist.gov
On 8 Jun 2011, at 07:15, Andrew Koch wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 00:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
BTW, how are you guys dealing with path MTU discovery for IPv6?
I've seen a few sites that have problems with this, such as www.nist.gov
,
Speaking of www.nist.gov,
, June 08, 2011 10:19 AM
To: David Swafford
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; do-webmas...@nist.gov
Subject: Re: www.nist.gov over v6 trouble Was: Microsoft's participation in
World IPv6 day
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:33 AM, David Swafford da...@davidswafford.com wrote:
Interesting, I'm having that same issue w
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Neil Long wrote:
Top of the page it says (now, may have been added)
Note: This top level web page has been setup to test IPv6 capabilities and
to participate in World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011. This IPv6 web page will be
disabled after the end of World IPv6 Day. Links on
; David Swafford
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; do-webmas...@nist.gov
Subject: RE: www.nist.gov over v6 trouble Was: Microsoft's participation in
World IPv6 day
Typical long trip via a sixxs.net tunnel.
Unlike Hurricane Electric (tunnelbroker.net), Sixxs has no US peering that I
know of so everything has to hit
in
World IPv6 day
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:33 AM, David Swafford da...@davidswafford.com wrote:
Interesting, I'm having that same issue w/ www.nist.gov this morning. Front
page loads fine, but all links return a 404. Here's my tracert if it
helps:
tracert www.nist.gov
Tracing route
Message-
From: STARNES, CURTIS [mailto:curtis.star...@granburyisd.org]
Sent: June-08-11 11:27 AM
To: Christopher Morrow; David Swafford
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; do-webmas...@nist.gov
Subject: RE: www.nist.gov over v6 trouble Was: Microsoft's participation in
World IPv6 day
Typical long trip via
On 8 Jun 2011, at 16:30, Jay Ford wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Neil Long wrote:
Top of the page it says (now, may have been added)
Note: This top level web page has been setup to test IPv6
capabilities and to participate in World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011.
This IPv6 web page will be disabled
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:47:43 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability
to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN.
The cynic in me says that guarantees widespread deployment of LSN. :)
pgpfiixYhziVp.pgp
On 2011-Jun-08 17:26, STARNES, CURTIS wrote:
Typical long trip via a sixxs.net tunnel. Unlike Hurricane Electric
(tunnelbroker.net), Sixxs has no US peering that I know of so
everything has to hit overseas before returning back.
psst.. there is no such thing as SixXS peering.
Each PoP
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 08:25:59PM +, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
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
/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem
vendors could stand improving their GUI.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
...@iname.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
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
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
-Original Message-
From: Jima [mailto:na...@jima.tk]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from
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
On 6/7/2011 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLongo...@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,
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
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
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
combined constraints:
1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
2 has
@ Microsoft
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM
It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off
by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't
need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires
it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently
as possible is a
In message dfe74319-378f-4134-b521-452328b17...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
writes:
It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off
by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't
need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires
it
Owen DeLong wrote:
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.
It'd be a great way to get a point across. ;-)
--
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said:
You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The
following very common applications are known to have problems
with LSN:
The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes
I'm curious: how does this have any problem with any particular
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
Increased traffic from less-geeky people = more sane numbers overall. The
problem with the graphs on that site is that the audience is self
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:20 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message dfe74319-378f-4134-b521-452328b17...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
writes:
It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off
by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't
need a public IP address
On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.
It'd be a great way to get a
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:55 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said:
You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The
following very common applications are known to have problems
with LSN:
The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes
I'm curious:
On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:30, Jason Fesler wrote:
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have
increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that
IPv4 only usage is increasing.
You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
the LSN.
Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for free.
LSN is beeing actively implemented in
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=0...@mail.gmail.com
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=
0...@mail.gmail.com
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried
to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN.
On France, our bigger ISP charges extra for a fixed IP. Its network
beeing rather old-fashioned, every DSL (and residential fiber) line
In message banlktiniakw+gppcmjfs8qfbdrm7qek...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne
writes:
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=
0...@mail.gmail.com
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark
On Jun 5, 2011 7:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message banlktiniakw+gppcmjfs8qfbdrm7qek...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron
Byrne
writes:
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=
0...@mail.gmail.com
In message
BANLkTik+qgTPXOwaSsHseYQbP0MBJw25Tb2bO6b3kyrKvhGj=q...@mail.gmail.com, =
?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried
to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on
Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the
success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher
on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall policy
for that particular phenomena.
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the
success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher
on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall
policy for that
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than
merely hotwire the system
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
to provide pointers to real workable IPv6
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:18 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
the problem.
and your solution is what?
-Dan
As I said
On 3 Jun 2011, at 10:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on
actually
resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with
additional
information on how to diagnose the problem, etc.
I would guess a typical user
On 3 Jun 2011, at 01:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
The day passing without any significant userland issues would make it a success.
It's a good opportunity to
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:18:08AM -0700, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
the problem.
and your solution is what?
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
You made the
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:01 EDT, Jared Mauch said:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december
Do they have any good reason to block proto 41?
Generic Homeusers never asked for IPv4 so they won't ask for IPv6. The time
will change many things from CPE to perspective as well. I'm not ready to
answer million calls on World IPv6 only week :)
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
IPv6 only was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
OK...
-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:44 AM
To: m...@jaidev.info
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote
03, 2011 7:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
in december 2010. It basiclly has
On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
IPv6 only was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
No. I
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
Something is happening...
On 6/2/11 21:34 , Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:31:57 -, Franck Martin said:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
Something is happening...
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there,
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
-
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and
lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic pattern for home/office,
but then you'd expect Friday to be
On 6/2/2011 7:08 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Worldanything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry
failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Andrew
I've had more customers ask and now willing to participate than ever before.
Any better suggestions? Or,
On 3 June 2011 23:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and
lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic
On Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 12:04:42AM +0100, Tony McCrory wrote:
I wonder if there is a disproportionately large amount of IPv6 usage
in the Middle East where a number of countries have their weekend on
Friday and Saturday, with Sunday being the first day of their working
week? UAE and Israel as
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and
lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Jun 3 17:25:39
2011
To: sur...@mauigateway.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:24:42 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1307139882_2680P
Content
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I
asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite
sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
It means that IPv6 geeks
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:13:31 -0700
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
To: fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN6A4VAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H7uoQAMrSuAXqXo+L+Wkiqx+OvwU8
On 06/02/2011 12:45 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well,
not using it!
It's not Microsoft's IPv6 support they're fixing, which works fine from
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH),
it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows
Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
This article describes step-by-step instructions for mitigating
issues you may have connecting to the Internet, or certain websites,
on World IPv6 Day (June 8, 2011).
The following Fix it
World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry
failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Andrew
On 2011-06-02 19:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
Worldanything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry
failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
No kidding. We wouldn't want to raise public awareness of IPv6 or
anything. That might take it out of the realm
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, andrew.wallace said:
World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998 and this is
still the closest thing to
In message 4de81ada.3010...@jima.tk, Jima writes:
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH),
it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, andrew.wallace said:
World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Got a better idea? Some of us have been
It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than
merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4.
That's the path I
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have
increased in the past half year but
On 06/02/2011 21:34, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than decreasing:
http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing rather than
In message BANLkTi=l1pdmxdcmqs+z656yjnsdnud...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne
writes:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is
increasing
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:42, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a
scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this
sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an
ipv6 test.
98 matches
Mail list logo
