[96104] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [ok] Re: DHCPv6, was: Re: IPv6 Finally gets off the ground
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Heutte)
Mon Apr 16 21:10:58 2007
From: Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>
To: <jeroen@unfix.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:23:09 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I may well not have fully figured out what was going on
in this particular situation. Mostly because I got tired of
trying to sort out the endless mysteries of IPv6 running
under XP Service Pack 2.
Teredo may or may not have been at issue. I saw some
analyses indicating this might have been the case. In any
event, after backing it and IPv6 out, all was well.
fh
-----------------
>[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
>> 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=
>> 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
>> 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
>
>
