[96095] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DHCPv6, was: Re: IPv6 Finally gets off the ground
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Mon Apr 16 18:43:35 2007
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:40:55 +0100
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200704162215.l3GMFq315184@broadway.hevanet.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig826791B3DB6B8FDD3613B263
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[hmmmm how come I didn't parse any operational content in this post...]
Fred Heutte wrote:
[..]
> I spent a couple hours in a hotel recently trying to untangle why
> using the DSL system I could see the net but couldn't get to any
> sites other than a few I tried at random like the BBC, Yahoo
> and Google.
>
> That's because they are among the few that apparently have=20
> IPv6 enabled web systems.
They don't have "IPv6 enabled web systems", a lot of people wished that
they did. What your problem most likely was, was a broken DNS server,
which, when queried for an AAAA simply doesn't respond.
Most Network Operators (to keep it a bit on topic for this mailinglist)
can't do anything about broken DNS servers at End User sites.
Note that this has *nothing* to do with Teredo, which even doesn't
activate itself when it can't get packets to be relayed. You can't thus
blame Microsoft for this. The DNS server is broken, not them. I know it
is always fun to blame M$ but really it isn't true.
Note also that the BBC once did have a AAAA related DNS problem, that
was in 2002 though and was quickly resolved:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2002-04/msg00559.html
These had another kind of problem, they returned NXDOMAIN, so that it
looked like the requested label was not there; much better still than
the simple ignore and forget of the End User DNS problems.
> I was once, circa 1995 or so, fairly enamored of IPv6. Now it=20
> makes me wonder just exactly what problem it is good at solving.
Primarily only one: a *lot* more address space. Enough to provide our
children's children children and the rest of the world with unique
addressable address space. Nothing more nothing less.
> Don't get me wrong -- it's not the fault of IPv6 and its designers
> and advocates, it's that the world has moved on and other
> methods have been found for the questions it was designed to=20
> address.
As it primarily resolves the address space problem and it solves this
perfectly well, how exactly did your world move on by staying limited to
32bits and only 4 million addresses while there are many more people on
this planet, not even thinking of subnets or having multiple addresses
per person?
Greets,
Jeroen
--------------enig826791B3DB6B8FDD3613B263
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iHUEARECADUFAkYj+3cuFIAAAAAAFQAQcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JnamVy
b2VuQHVuZml4Lm9yZwAKCRApqihSMz58I0qeAJ4yggkUdHSZA0QO0X8R0P/5ZfWZ
8wCeOGjAML4VsnudXdf9CHld0ArRgpM=
=4JVj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig826791B3DB6B8FDD3613B263--