On 7 Jun 2011, at 04:47, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:56:32 +, Paul Vixie said:
>
> PV> it's been a while since i looked at the query stream still hitting
> PV> importantly and happily, there's a great deal of IPv6 happening
> PV> here.
>
> Which is reaffirming what ma
Cisco just published a report saying that bandwidth will increase 400% by 2015,
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2182
That does mean doubling every two years as far as it goes..
j
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Owen DeLong :
>> I think you'll be surprised over time. G
I agree, HE's peering policy makes them an attractive transit provider.
However, money and strategy still come into play here.
For example, ISP Z will think "I need some peering and transit. But if I get HE
transit then some people may not peer with me at X-exchange because they will
already
On 7 June 2011 10:33, Jon Heise wrote:
> Aside from rancid, what methods do people have for doing automated backups
> and diffing of router configs ?
>
>
http://code.google.com/p/notch/ and it's assortment of tools is something
I've been meaning to look into.
--
Shaineel Singh
e: shain.si...@g
Le 07/06/2011 01:56, Paul Vixie a écrit :
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef2:f340
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef0:1de
How can 2001:db8::/32 reach your machines ?
Denis
Ok, so based on what's been written here, here is the list of tools
mentioned so far
RANCID - http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/
Inventory (formerly ZipTie) - http://inventory.alterpoint.com/
NocProject - http://redmine.nocproject.org/projects/noc/wiki
Notch - http://code.google.com/p/notch/
Cisco-C
in this context, anyone who is a BGP speaker is an ISP.
/bill
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 07:34:25AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, rucasbr...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> Please define ISP.
>
> -Hank
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I wouldn't consider myself a network engineer, nor do I have
As in sales? Isn't that all they have?
On 6/7/11, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> Does cogent have a true carrier/wholesale team?
Cheers
Ryan
Sent from my
> Windows Phone
--
Sent from my mobile device
> As in sales? Isn't that all they have?
He probably means who understands the business.
Erik
Sometimes more than 25% of the traffic in our webserver is v6
http://lacnic.net/v6stat/hour_access_log_counter.png
http://lacnic.net/v6stat/hour_access_log_counter.txt
Haven't time to check the details about URLs, countries, user-agents
but I am working on it.
Regards,
.as
O
>
> Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
> connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
> multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
> make additional connections.
Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE?
Owen
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 where the IPv6 works pretty good
> (http://www.getipv6.info/ind
Thus spake Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com) on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:37:00AM
-0700:
> >
> > Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
> > connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
> > multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
> > make a
On 06/07/2011 03:13 AM, Denis F. wrote:
Le 07/06/2011 01:56, Paul Vixie a écrit :
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef2:f340
44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef0:1de
How can 2001:db8::/32 reach your machines ?
Lack of ingress filtering on Mr. Vixie's part, and lack of egress
filtering on whoever-owns-those-S
http://heartbeat.skype.com/
skype has been microsofted already. "small number of users" my ass.
probably 7/8 of the users i would see at this time are not on.
randy
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
in this context, anyone who is a BGP speaker is an ISP.
Peering costs money. The transit bandwidth saved by peering with another
network may not be sufficient to cover the cost of installing and
maintaining whatever connections are nec
+1,
My number is not working at all even the call not switching to voice mail.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> http://heartbeat.skype.com/
>
> skype has been microsofted already. "small number of users" my ass.
> probably 7/8 of the users i wou
One of my employees is reporting that Cox told her a backhoe "cut a main line"
somewhere in the Alexandria, Virginia area earlier this morning. More than
likely a fiber cut I'd imagine. Apparently it's affecting about 50,000
residential customers and has been down since 5 a.m.
Anyone have mor
-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:00 AM
-snip-
I manage a network that's primarily a hosting network. There's a similar
hosting network at the other end of the building. We both have multiple
gigs of transit. We don't peer w
Is not working for me since early today, first the connection went
down and later the application crashed ... I refuse to switch to MSN.
I'm afraid that soon my monitor will explode if microsoft acquisition
of NVIDIA goes through.
BTW, after yesterday announcements at WWDC I wonder if there are s
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> http://heartbeat.skype.com/
>
> skype has been microsofted already. "small number of users" my ass.
> probably 7/8 of the users i would see at this time are not on.
On this topic, it has also been penetrated, by the
Egyptian “Electronic Penetrat
In message <8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> > Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
> > connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
> > multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
> > make a
I love how this story was published AFTER MSFT purchased them ;-)
--
Leigh Porter
> -Original Message-
> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:t...@americafree.tv]
> Sent: 07 June 2011 15:28
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: skype
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, R
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
> One of my employees is reporting that Cox told her a backhoe "cut a main
> line" somewhere in the Alexandria, Virginia area earlier this morning. More
> than likely a fiber cut I'd imagine. Apparently it's affecting about 50,000
> resident
> Consider two alternatives :
>
> - Finance guns, soldier training, refugee camps, humanitarian ground
> help and political meetings and treaties to make a revolution happens
> in a (more or less controled) bloodshed
>
> OR
>
> - Take a strong position to preserve freedom of speech and wider use
>
> I love how this story was published AFTER MSFT purchased them ;-)
>
http://plug2play.blogspot.com/2010/12/skypes-biggest-secret-revealed.html
reverse engineering hack was reported back in mid December.
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > > http://heartbeat.skype.com/
On 07/06/11 15:28, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message<8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well
I'd like to foster a discussion here to better understand this, not rile anyone
up. That said, what I see so far is a representation of those who do not
recall the halcyon days before a rabid profit motive was the driving force
behind ISPs.
Peering in it's original sense is/was free. It was a
> From: Raymond Burkholder [mailto:r...@oneunified.net]
>
> > I love how this story was published AFTER MSFT purchased them ;-)
> >
>
> http://plug2play.blogspot.com/2010/12/skypes-biggest-secret-
> revealed.html
>
> reverse engineering hack was reported back in mid December.
Indeed, but "reve
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> So far, it seems to be working pretty well for us. I encourage others
> to follow our lead in this regard as it truly does make a more functional
> internet.
I concur, and I specifically would like to see a lot more *geographically*
local peer
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> I concur, and I specifically would like to see a lot more *geographically*
> local peering, so packets from Roar Runner[1] Tampa Bay to FiOS Tampa Bay
> don't
> have to clog up an exchang point in Reston or Dallas; this stuff *will*
> eventual
Content providers (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube) will always try to get their
content serviced for little to no cost. The low cost, web-only plan isn't
sustainable, and the amount of Netflix traffic around the globe is a good
example; There's a lot of traffic that they aren't paying for. The fre
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 10:15:48AM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:00 AM
>
> -snip-
>
> I manage a network that's primarily a hosting network. There's a similar
> hosting network at the other e
> Indeed, but "reverse engineered" and "Egyptian government snooping Skype
> calls" are quite different. Whilst some people may have rather foolishly
> relied on Skype for privacy, this is now not going to happen. I doubt it'll
> make a big dent on the user base though.
Skype privacy ? hehe, th
I turned up ipv6 on a 10gig in the Boston market with XO today. They'll
definitely do it, but it might take a bit of pushing on an account manager.
I've also turned up ipv6 with Level(3), and have noted the same incompleteness
of the routing table.
It will be a shame if the majority of complai
Jima writes:
>>> 44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef2:f340
>>> 44 2001:db8::230:48ff:fef0:1de
>>
>> How can 2001:db8::/32 reach your machines ?
>
> Lack of ingress filtering on Mr. Vixie's part, ...
indeed. i had no idea.
> and lack of egress
> filtering on whoever-owns-those-Supermicro-board's part.
>
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Matthew Palmer wrote:
netflow data, I'm guessing we average about 100kbit/s or less traffic in
each direction between us. At that low a level, is it even worth the time
and trouble to coordinate setting up a peering connection, much less
tying up a gigE port at each end?
---
Correct
-Original Message-
From: Erik Bais [mailto:eb...@a2b-internet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:46 AM
To: 'Chris McDonald'; Ryan Finnesey; 'NANOG'
Subject: RE: Cogent?
> As in sales? Isn't that all they have?
He probably means who understands the business.
Erik
I have not been able to find a group within Cogent that sells services
to other carriers. Been trying to get access to a lot of the fiber
Cogent has running into buildings.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Chris McDonald [mailto:copraph...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:52:31AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> What I've found interesting is the cost of circuits seem to not be
> distance-sensitive. I think this will contribute to mega-regional peering
> for the foreseeable future.
>
> (ie: dc, sj, dfw, chi, nyc, etcbble devices in those
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
> Content providers (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube) will always try to get
> their content serviced for little to no cost. The low cost, web-only plan
> isn't sustainable, and the amount of Netflix traffic around the globe is a
> good example; The
I'm in the US -- could very well be available only in the N.A. market.
Manuals have not been updated -- it's running with pre-GA code.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:45 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: frnk...@i
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific "chatter"
about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically
about our website. Of course they have also offered to assist us in
preventing this from af
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0500, Mark Pace
wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific "chatter"
about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically
about our website. Of course the
On 06/07/2011 01:42 PM, Mark Pace wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment.
It wasn't Radware, was it?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/060611-ipv6-security.html
If not, it would seem that there's no shortage of IPv6 FUD this we
In a message written on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:42:40AM -0700, Mark Pace wrote:
> I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
> un-named for the moment. They said that they heard specific "chatter"
> about DDoS of IPv6 day participant sites and even more specifically
> abou
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:01:59 -0500, Jima wrote:
On 06/07/2011 01:42 PM, Mark Pace wrote:
I got an interesting contact from a large company that I will leave
un-named for the moment.
It wasn't Radware, was it?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/060611-ipv6-security.html
If not, it w
We got the same call. I think they just trolled on through the IPv6Day
participants list. They indicated that we were likely to be 'specifically
targeted' as a result of 'putting ourselves out there'. I suspect it's merely
a misprogrammed sales drone spewing fear-infused garbage.
The caller
We too just received this phone call. The company was Verisign, felt an
awful lot like a protection racket. Very unwelcomed phone call.
Buyer Beware.
^1qaz2wsx^
Hehe.. yeah, no thanks - I'll do it myself with our existing DDOS
mitigation. ;)
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 2:57 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ipv6 day DDoS threat?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0500, Mark
On 7 Jun 2011, at 20:04, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> I thought the goal was to get everyone to try out IPv6. Doesn't that
> include the miscreants? :)
Well, if I was evil I'd be looking for IPv6 back doors tomorrow...
Tim
I can confirm, it was indeed Verisign who emailed me with the same message.
I am slightly disappointed by this course of action, needless to say I am
not surprised, because this kind of behavior is
expected from sales people.
I had a bit more respect for them, however...
-ck
On Tue, Jun 7, 201
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:18:11 BST, Tim Chown said:
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 20:04, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >
> > I thought the goal was to get everyone to try out IPv6. Doesn't that
> > include the miscreants? :)
>
> Well, if I was evil I'd be looking for IPv6 back doors tomorrow...
No, that's when
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, rucasbr...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
>> All the whole "don't peer with this guy" only makes your customers
>> have worse latencies and paths to other people, making the Internet
>> less healthy.
>
> Not necessarily. Peeri
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 articl
There is also http://sourceforge.net/projects/dis -- The latest version in CVS
is best.
It's a project I wrote for use at a previous employer, which downloads tens of
thousands of configs per night.
It also facilitates easier development of device scripts and their parallel
execution, deplo
We're very concerned about permanently configuring hosts into a non-standard
state. That is one reason our World IPv6 Day fix is only a temporary
modification of the Windows sorting order and isn't being pushed through
Windows Update.
Permanently disabling IPv6 as a solution to the "IPv6 broken
Hi Nanog
We are an ISP/ASP in New Zealand, but we have a presence in Equinix LA1.
We are looking for a services company that can store spare router/mux parts in
the LA area, and who can deliver with a good SLA to the Equinix LA1 site. We
will eventually be looking for the same type of service i
www.juniper.net is on IPv6
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for others
though
www.level3.com works fine over v4 but shows a 404 over IPv6
www.simobil.si is temporarily unavailable over IPv6 but works fine over IPv4
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for
> others though
If you go to www.v6.facebook.com it works, but it seems they have some problem
on their main site. I am seeing some issues reaching them over IPv6
On 6/7/2011 11:38 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Additionally, we share at least one common transit provider, so we'd
be trading <1ms for 1-2ms. Obviously, if we were talking about a
leased line with any MRC, the answer would be hell no. Since we're
able to utilize fiber inside the building with no MRC
On 6/7/2011 6:15 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for others
though
If you go to www.v6.facebook.com it works, but it seems they have some problem
on their main site. I am seei
No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and to
the returned by www.facebook.com now).
Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
"facebook.com" does not.
Google / Youtube records are up and running nicely also.
J.
-Original Mess
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:19 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 6:15 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>
>>> www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for
>>> others though
>> If you go to www.v6.facebook.com it works, but
- Original Message -
> From: "John Herbert"
> No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com
> and to the returned by www.facebook.com now).
>
> Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
> "facebook.com" does not.
And "thefacebook.co
2011/6/8 Jack Bates :
> That's what it really boils down to. How much money can be saved versus
> performance. If I'm doing a lot of throughput to a specific network, it
> makes sense that I might want to connect to them, especially if that
> connection either 1) saves me money or 2) gives me supe
On 6/7/2011 6:39 PM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
That's certainly a valid approach for direct (private) peering, it's
not applicable to IXPs offering route servers.
In my case, I have to justify the long haul to an IXP as appropriate
cost savings, and given that haul often costs more than I pay f
yahoo is already serving up the as well.
Thanks Igor!
Looking forward to seeing the traffic spike today :)
- Jared
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> www.juniper.net is on IPv6
>
> www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for
> others t
On 06/07/2011 07:22 PM, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
> No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and to
> the returned by www.facebook.com now).
>
> Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , but
> "facebook.com" does not.
>
> Google / Youtu
On 06/07/2011 07:56 PM, Pete Carah wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 07:22 PM, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote:
>> No issues connecting to FB for me on IPv6 (both to www.v6.facebook.com and
>> to the returned by www.facebook.com now).
>>
>> Interesting (perhaps) side note - www.facebook.com has a , bu
This is from Sweden.
$ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 61742
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; WARN
I'll be watching this page probably.
http://www.worldipv6day.org/participants/
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:02, Pete Carah wrote:
> www.facebook.com (but not facebook.com) just turned on here too (after
> google). another hex-speak spelling...
I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
work, but it redirects to m.facebook.com which doesn't have IPv6
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:19 PM, wrote:
> why don't ISPs peer with every other ISP?
1. For those who can pull it off, getting paid twice for each packet
is better than getting paid once.
2. Your service has a value per byte and a cost per byte. If your
value is less than your cost, you go out of
On 6/7/2011 17:04, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> This is from Sweden.
>
> $ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 61742
> ;; flags:
I'm getting v6 for facebook now.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
- Original Message -
> This is from Sweden.
>
> $ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
>
> ; <<>> Di
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 8 jun 2011, at 2:02, Pete Carah wrote:
>
>> www.facebook.com (but not facebook.com) just turned on here too (after
>> google). another hex-speak spelling...
>
> I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems
In addition to themselves announcing this, NASA.gov and Markertek.com have
announced there that they're participating with their websites; I'll reply
to this posting if I see any others (and if anyone better positioned to
report on their success posts, I'll pass it along).
Cheers,
-- jr 'yes; jus
That's because you're asking the wrong nameservers. The response you're
getting is pointing you to the correct nameservers (glb1/glb2.facebook.com)
which are defintely returning records for me :
$ dig +short www.facebook.com @glb1.facebook.com
2620:0:1c08:4000:face:b00c:0:3
Scott.
> On 8 jun 2011, at 2:02, Pete Carah wrote:
>
>> www.facebook.com (but not facebook.com) just turned on here too (after
>> google). another hex-speak spelling...
> I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
> work, but it redirects to m.facebook.com which doesn't h
On 06/07/2011 08:08 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm using my iPhone as the IPv6-only canary. www.facebook.com now seems to
work, but it redirects to m.facebook.com which doesn't have IPv6. This seems to
be a trend, yahoo and cnn do the same thing. Annoying.
Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabl
On 6/7/2011 7:13 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/7/2011 17:04, fredrik danerklint wrote:
This is from Sweden.
$ dig any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
;<<>> DiG 9.7.3<<>> any www.facebook.com @ns1.facebook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NO
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
www.juniper.net is on IPv6
www.facebook.com has but doesn't load for me over IPv6, it does for others
though
Working great for me. Getting to it via HE.
www.level3.com works fine over v4 but shows a 404 over IPv6
Yes, I am seeing th
On 06/08/2011 02:13 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> I'm getting v6 for facebook now.
www.facebook.com is v6 here, but I see no for the fbcdn.net subdomains.
--
Rémy Sanchez
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
In case there are folks who missed this in the past few years, we will
soon be past the point where IPv6 transit swaps and other incubation
tools are acceptable to customers. How is it that Tiscali and Sprint
can only get together via IIJ? Who is to blame? From my perspective,
all three networks
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 20:14, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> Props to google for doing it right, e.g.:
>
> maps.googleapis.com
> gg.google.com
> safebrowsing.clients.google.com
>
> Thank you google!
>
> - Jared
>
... and Gmail, too ...
/TJ
Sorry about this.
When asked for the right thing it does resolv!
$ dig www.facebook.com
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.facebook.com. IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.facebook.com. 30 IN 2620:0:1c08:4000:face:b00c:0:3
> That's because you're asking th
On 6/7/2011 17:16, Scott Howard wrote:
> That's because you're asking the wrong nameservers. The response you're
> getting is pointing you to the correct nameservers (glb1/glb2.facebook.com)
> which are defintely returning records for me :
>
> $ dig +short www.facebook.com @glb1.faceboo
- Original Message -
> From: "Jared Mauch"
> Props to google for doing it right, e.g.:
>
> maps.googleapis.com
> gg.google.com
> safebrowsing.clients.google.com
>
> Thank you google!
Funny you bring up "getting all the subsidiary sties right".
I tried to comment on an N
- Original Message -
> From: "Matt Ryanczak"
> Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabled but the user-agent on my phone
> denies me an IPv6 experience.
I thought I'd heard that LTE transport was *IPv6 only*...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j..
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
[snip]
> gets a 200 amp electrical service. The problem with that notion is
> that A) consumers are hooked on "unlimited," and B) your toaster
Consumers aren't getting "unlimited right now".
They're getting (unknown number of databytes)/month,
That is expected, the CDN is not IPv6 enabled (yet)
On 6/7/11 5:24 PM, "Rémy Sanchez" wrote:
>On 06/08/2011 02:13 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> I'm getting v6 for facebook now.
>
>www.facebook.com is v6 here, but I see no for the fbcdn.net
>subdomains.
>
>--
>Rémy Sanchez
>
Anyone with native v6 want to help me test my content? I don't have any v6
access from anything except a few dedicated servers yet. Off list response is
fine :)
-Original Message-
From: TJ [mailto:trej...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:32 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 day
On 8 jun 2011, at 2:31, TJ wrote:
> ... and Gmail, too ...
imap.gmail.com only has IPv4, though.
This path for 2001::/32 leads to a broken teredo relay:
3257 1103 1101
http://ip6.me was using this path and not working from my client. When I
routing to prefer 6939's relays it started working.
- Kevin
This is amusing:
Tracing route to www.facebook.com [2620:0:1c00:0:*face:b00c*:0:2]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 2001:1938:2a7::1
288 ms95 ms88 ms gw-383.phx-01.us.sixxs.net[2001:1938:81:17e::1]
391 ms86 ms89 ms 2001:4de0:1000:a4::1
4
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 21:04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 8 jun 2011, at 2:31, TJ wrote:
>
> > ... and Gmail, too ...
>
> imap.gmail.com only has IPv4, though.
>
Good catch, applies to pop & smtp as well. Baby steps, I guess?
/TJ
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong 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 percentage of
Anybody keeping any realtime stats ?
-J
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> [snip]
>> gets a 200 amp electrical service. The problem with that notion is
>> that A) consumers are hooked on "unlimited," and B) your toaster
> Consumers aren't getting "unlimited right
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
