[141116] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Fri Jun 3 12:18:18 2011
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: <mail@jaidev.info>
In-Reply-To: <5B96FD72-1070-4E76-BDB2-EB4F3936A8E2@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:16:18 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
As Owen is suggesting, if would have been helpful if Microsoft's Network
troubleshooting wizard in Windows Vista and 7 had an inkling about IPv6 and
would check IPv6 connectivity in the same way it checks IPv6 connectivity,
and work through things link 6to4 issues.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:44 AM
To: mail@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 <owen@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 to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4.
>>
>> That's the path I chose.
>
> I guess you're all missing the point here. I've never agreed too much
> with M$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature
> these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly
> implemented networks / tunnels (see:
> http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf).
>
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
the problem.
> For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6.
No, there is the option of troubleshooting why IPv6 doesn't work for
them and working to correct it.
> Hopefully the service providers & network admins get to identify and
> fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$
> bashing, but not for this reason.
>
I didn't see where in the M$ propaganda it suggested calling your ISP
or network admin to have them help you fix the issue, so, I don't see
how what they are proposing has any hope of enabling this.
Owen
> -Jaidev
>
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>
>>> -----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
>>> v4TJEeTU8Hp+ap0Kuka0Jq2HFC2ReABwfwZEX9wywdcXKFYu1u8znVa6neX6rjcv
>>> uxghsoqZEp9A4KB/J2q/ulM6B8/40oRHK1IuHdv0fZwC0oLyJ1W10n1VzsiE3qxx
>>> JOWbn1SIPo4nXnTIVU60yDOySlsclpW3fuqQoUIHzwEZEFgYf2l7ywcPfuCvVQJw
>>> FuqASIk0c9hQJVnBKTpaIQaNdRExkYtQSs5i8+TyzxhyGx1XGDOeJoRHRBQhSfcS
>>> DS8Vuwvblh+UjGFDIEF9Oen7NxrK2xjBCJIDV+MbJwAJdjs5wM3H9nFdhCX9Z2cl
>>> TRIj4/qQcS7m8cl4gNFY3nplALrWHjs2WK8jk0HlDnEgvSe7D2YC6Te5vnGgY9sX
>>> JXif1D36Pzx1V1JwbmMIwvvlUalPH/jyciMVUGrMMKc+0w7/75IerzGsSabdTIzJ
>>> t0/4jh5/h8db+q37CfN1Xj/gWkBcIyXmGGCd3pny4+YJwI5hnspWoeRq5lkB64Pn
>>> zDCJANGd5PZxtcTBgYJkZCK+sNjzycThkS1UP8pKdajbyQNlbRWkDFbQwMQ0DQEa
>>> IanX3BioesZmfashzRu+khdczhLVtFLKLUT7/yI2RqQOekx5sO+HqzTIiIIp5mkd
>>> KbOBvdIvnaz5FI94I8jk
>>> =OyB3
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
