Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-15 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 16/06/2015 11:12 a.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 06:47 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >> 1) >> I have confirmed my suspicion that your IPv6 routing is a bit broken. > > I'm not sure I agree with you entirely on that (more below)... > >> The IPv6 address is in a private IP

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-15 Thread Brian J. Murrell
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 06:47 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > 1) > I have confirmed my suspicion that your IPv6 routing is a bit broken. I'm not sure I agree with you entirely on that (more below)... > The IPv6 address is in a private IP range fc00::/7. Oh damn. It's a ULA address. I did not ev

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 15/06/2015 2:42 a.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 21:49 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 12/06/2015 11:48 p.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: >>> On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:13 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: see

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-14 Thread Brian J. Murrell
On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 21:49 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 12/06/2015 11:48 p.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:13 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> > >> see > > > > Of course, I did see the rest of the m

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-13 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 12/06/2015 11:48 p.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:13 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >> see > > Of course, I did see the rest of the messages in the thread. I'm not > sure what I'm supposed to be seein

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-12 Thread Brian J. Murrell
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:13 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > see Of course, I did see the rest of the messages in the thread. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing in that particular message though other than 3.4.3 worked

Re: [squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-11 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 12/06/2015 9:56 a.m., Brian J. Murrell wrote: > At least from here, irc.bcwireless.net:6667 is non-functional > (connection times out) on IPv6 but works on IPv4: > > # telnet irc.bcwireless.net 6667 > Trying fcaa:8ef7:51b9:8f04:58f1:7364:e16e:fe2f... > telnet: connect to address fcaa:8ef7:51b9:

[squid-users] no fallback to ipv4 if ipv6 remote address is non-functional

2015-06-11 Thread Brian J. Murrell
At least from here, irc.bcwireless.net:6667 is non-functional (connection times out) on IPv6 but works on IPv4: # telnet irc.bcwireless.net 6667 Trying fcaa:8ef7:51b9:8f04:58f1:7364:e16e:fe2f... telnet: connect to address fcaa:8ef7:51b9:8f04:58f1:7364:e16e:fe2f: Connection timed out Trying 198.27