Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
-----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-----
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. "we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well, not using it!" -- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
On 06/02/2011 12:45 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. "we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well, not using it!"
It's not Microsoft's IPv6 support they're fixing, which works fine from my experience with it, they're making sure you can access sites if your ISP or Router's IPv6 handling is screwed up. Paul
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH), it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (as they themselves claim) <0.1% of users who may encounter issues next Wednesday: http://blogs.technet.com/b/ipv6/archive/2011/02/11/ipv6-day.aspx Fun as it might be to take it out of context, at least they're not telling people to disable IPv6 entirely (like some organizations still are). Jima
In message <4DE81ADA.3010806@jima.tk>, Jima writes:
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH), it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (as they themselves claim) <0.1% of users who may encounter issues next Wednesday:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/ipv6/archive/2011/02/11/ipv6-day.aspx
Fun as it might be to take it out of context, at least they're not telling people to disable IPv6 entirely (like some organizations still are).
Jima
They need to fix the typo. You vs Your. :-) Mark Your ready for World IPv6 Day, and have nothing to worry about. You also are lucky enough to have IPv6 connectivity along with IPv4 - meaning you have two ways to connect to the Internet! -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
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 brokenness" issue is NOT recommended. Turning a transitory problem (hosts on broken networks) into a permanent problem (hosts that don't use IPv6 correctly) - risks creating a serious long-term headache. ---------------------------- Christopher.Palmer@Microsoft.com Program Manager IPv6 @ Windows -----Original Message----- From: Jima [mailto:nanog@jima.tk] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:21 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH), it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (as they themselves claim) <0.1% of users who may encounter issues next Wednesday: http://blogs.technet.com/b/ipv6/archive/2011/02/11/ipv6-day.aspx Fun as it might be to take it out of context, at least they're not telling people to disable IPv6 entirely (like some organizations still are). Jima
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
"This article describes step-by-step instructions for mitigating issues you may have connecting to the Internet, or certain websites, on World IPv6 Day (June 8, 2011). The following Fix it solution will _resolve_ the issue by configuring your computer to prefer IPv4, instead of IPv6." [Insert Nelson Muntz laugh here] -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
World <anything> day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. Andrew
On 2011-06-02 19:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
World<anything> day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
No kidding. We wouldn't want to raise public awareness of IPv6 or anything. That might take it out of the realm of geeky plaything. :-( Jima
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said:
World <anything> day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998 and this is still the closest thing to getting people motivated to switch we've seen this century. And I doubt it will be a *total* failure - even if a lot of things unexpectedly break, the post-mortems will of value. In fact, the cynic in me says the post-mortems are what's really driving this whole event. ;)
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said:
World <anything> day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998 and this is still the closest thing to getting people motivated to switch we've seen this century.
And I doubt it will be a *total* failure - even if a lot of things unexpectedly break, the post-mortems will of value. In fact, the cynic in me says the post-mortems are what's really driving this whole event. ;)
+1 IPv6 day is already a huge success since it has brought technology competitors like Facebook, Bing, Google, Yahoo, Akamai, Limelight and many others all together to help move this VERY IMPORTANT rock up the hill. The ideal state of IPv6 day is that the Internet keeps working with "no news" from a network operator perspective ... aside from a very slight bump in IPv6 traffic (we still have edge IPv6 reach issues in the Internet (understatement)... but there is progress there too (true statement)). If you have not been to the website, you should go and have a look. This list should have a high level of interest in the success and IPv6 day.... since most of us get pay checks based on the continued growth and success of this here network of networks. http://www.worldipv6day.org/ And, in case you have not seen a hockey stick lately http://v6asns.ripe.net/v/6 Cameron
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. -Hank
IPv6 day is already a huge success since it has brought technology competitors like Facebook, Bing, Google, Yahoo, Akamai, Limelight and many others all together to help move this VERY IMPORTANT rock up the hill.
On 06/02/2011 21:34, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
I think the graph is becoming more reflective of the real world as the test site gets more exposure. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. These people who run the test, likely know what IPv6 is and therefore are more likely to have IPv6 enabled. As world ipv6 day gets more general press coverage, the graph is bending more towards a more realistic sample of the internet ... which does not usually have IPv6 access. Assuming Google users represent the general internet, this is the graph that displays what you are likely looking for http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ Cameron
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. These people who run the test, likely know what IPv6 is and therefore are more likely to have IPv6 enabled.
As world ipv6 day gets more general press coverage, the graph is bending more towards a more realistic sample of the internet ... which does not usually have IPv6 access.
Assuming Google users represent the general internet, this is the graph that displays what you are likely looking for
This data is probably a better reference regarding ipv6 traffic growth http://www.ams-ix.net/sflow-stats/ipv6/ cb
In message <BANLkTi=L1pdmxdCMQs+z656yjNsDNudAPw@mail.gmail.com>, Cameron Byrne writes:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. These people who run the test, likely know what IPv6 is and therefore are more likely to have IPv6 enabled.
As world ipv6 day gets more general press coverage, the graph is bending more towards a more realistic sample of the internet ... which does not usually have IPv6 access.
Assuming Google users represent the general internet, this is the graph that displays what you are likely looking for
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
Cameron
Which is good as it is showing 6to4 fixes being deployed to preference IPv4 over 6to4 and a strong growth in IPv6 native. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:42, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote: ....>
Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test.
Commonly called sample bias. Good statistical analysis will address (and adjust for) such bias, but that can be (very) hard work. As with all the "CNN polls", there should be a disclaimer on such sites that say "this is not a scientific poll", but that would ruin the fun..... Gary
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ Something is happening... On 6/2/11 21:34 , "Hank Nussbacher" <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:31:57 -0000, Franck Martin said:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
Something is happening...
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it.
It means that IPv6 geeks have lives too :) -- Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html
Increased traffic from less-geeky people = more sane numbers overall. The problem with the graphs on that site is that the audience is self selecting; so only when some major site says "go here!" do we get a more random(ish) audience, versus people setting up tunnelbrokers and the like.
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've seen so far says that *starts* nowish, and more laterish this year, in any impacting way. Really, we're just just before the start of getting end user adoption to start rising.
On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:30, Jason Fesler wrote:
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've seen so far says that *starts* nowish, and more laterish this year, in any impacting way. Really, we're just just before the start of getting end user adoption to start rising.
For our web presence, which has been dual-stack since 2004, we saw external IPv6 traffic rise 0.1% per year to 2010, when it 'leapt' to 1.0% and in 2011 so far the highest we've seen over any month is 1.8%, so it doubled in 2010 and is set to more than double in 2011. OK, so 2% is still small, but from tiny acorns... SMTP is still well under 1% though. Tim
On 3 Jun 2011, at 01:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
World <anything> day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
The day passing without any significant userland issues would make it a success. It's a good opportunity to ensure you have the right measurement tools in place so you can learn something from the day. For sites that have dual-stack deployed, a one-day peek into the future where perhaps 15% or more of external traffic will be IPv6 is pretty useful, given it's currently 1% or less. Tim
On 6/2/2011 7:08 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
World<anything> day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
Andrew
I've had more customers ask and now willing to participate than ever before. Any better suggestions? Or, maybe take your pissing mechanism and try a subject more worthy. tv
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. 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-----
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$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly implemented networks / tunnels (see: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf). For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6. Hopefully the service providers & network admins get to identify and fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$ bashing, but not for this reason. -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.
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.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:18 AM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
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.
and your solution is what?
-Dan
As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on actually resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with additional information on how to diagnose the problem, etc. Owen
On 3 Jun 2011, at 10:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on actually resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with additional information on how to diagnose the problem, etc.
I would guess a typical user will call their local helpdesk or ISP first if they have problems. They won't have a clue that Google or Facebook are down or slow due to IPv6 connectivity issues. In which case MS providing a syskb entry for those support people to point the user at seems pretty reasonable. One major MS site has gone dual-stack this morning btw :) Tim
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:18:08AM -0700, goemon@anime.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem.
and your solution is what?
Being a techie, I do want some people to have broken networks that day so they can *fix* it. Very few things are going to break in a new way that there isn't a known fix for. I do expect that this while thing will be a giant noop. Some people with old software/firmware or broken hardware may see something, but without proper maintence I would expect that with anything. Cars, Planes and Trains included. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
You are missing a big point here, most NL users for example cannot use ipv6 tunnels because the isp's equipment doesn't allow them. When I called my ISP (online.nl) for example to ask about it, they first had something like: what the heck are you talking about. In fact, one of the only major isp's in the netherlands actively supporting ipv6 for customers is xs4all. On several other providers I had I am simply unable to setup a tunnel. The provider itself is the one blocking proto 41. Not me or my router, and surely not he.net. Another issue is, as long as not many homeusers are aware of ipv6 (for them it's just technical mumbo jumbo they don't care about, as long as they get the webpages shown they wanna access it's fine for them). So having said previous, maybe there should be a World IPv6 only week. That would piss off users, make them complain at their isp, and maybe THEN they finally wanna do some implementations. Op 3-6-2011 9:44, Owen DeLong schreef:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
Perhaps people here would like to let M$ 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:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
Do they have any good reason to block proto 41? Generic Homeusers never asked for IPv4 so they won't ask for IPv6. The time will change many things from CPE to perspective as well. I'm not ready to answer million calls on World IPv6 only week :) Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alexander Maassen <outsider@scarynet.org>wrote:
You are missing a big point here, most NL users for example cannot use ipv6 tunnels because the isp's equipment doesn't allow them. When I called my ISP (online.nl) for example to ask about it, they first had something like: what the heck are you talking about. In fact, one of the only major isp's in the netherlands actively supporting ipv6 for customers is xs4all. On several other providers I had I am simply unable to setup a tunnel. The provider itself is the one blocking proto 41. Not me or my router, and surely not he.net. Another issue is, as long as not many homeusers are aware of ipv6 (for them it's just technical mumbo jumbo they don't care about, as long as they get the webpages shown they wanna access it's fine for them). So having said previous, maybe there should be a World IPv6 only week. That would piss off users, make them complain at their isp, and maybe THEN they finally wanna do some implementations.
Op 3-6-2011 9:44, Owen DeLong schreef:
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:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
On 2011-Jun-03 14:48, Alexander Maassen wrote:
You are missing a big point here, most NL users for example cannot use ipv6 tunnels because the isp's equipment doesn't allow them.
Which is why Freenet6/Gogo6 has TSP and SixXS has AYIYA because tunneling over UDP works fine, just like every other VPN product in the market does (though most VPN products don't do IPv6 yet, it is coming). Take a guess why these protocols exist ;)
When I called my ISP (online.nl) for example to ask about it, they first had something like: what the heck are you talking about.
That layer 1 personnel does not know about IPv6 just shows that the company did not invest in IPv6 training yet. Their problem that they need to resolve sooner or later and actually the bigger problem than upgrading software or even hardware as those things just cycle out in a few years time.
On several other providers I had I am simply unable to setup a tunnel. The provider itself is the one blocking proto 41. Not me or my router, and surely not he.net.
Let me guess, you are behind a NAT and expect protocol-41 to be forwarded exactly where? Anyway, as stated above, just use TSP or AYIYA. Having lived in The Netherlands for a long time and various other places, I have never had a problem, even in hotels with broken setups, to get IPv6 going. Heck it even works in most airports ;)
Another issue is, as long as not many homeusers are aware of ipv6 (for them it's just technical mumbo jumbo they don't care about, as long as they get the webpages shown they wanna access it's fine for them). So having said previous, maybe there should be a World IPv6 only week. That would piss off users, make them complain at their isp, and maybe THEN they finally wanna do some implementations.
"IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day, but take a guess how many phone calls would go to ISPs then and how much money folks would lose when that would be done. Greets, Jeroen
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Tim Chown" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
"IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where they turn off ipv4 for an hour on the conference wifi. Ipv6 day was never about turning v4 off Cb
Tim
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Tim Chown" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
"IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where they turn off ipv4 for an hour on the conference wifi. Ipv6 day was never about turning v4 off
No confusion there, there was an earlier plan to do an IPv6-only stint, but that was withdrawn as it would have caused too much amok in the world. Greets, Jeroen
On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Tim Chown" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
"IPv6 only" was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where they turn off ipv4 for an hour on the conference wifi. Ipv6 day was never about turning v4 off
No confusion there, there was an earlier plan to do an IPv6-only stint, but that was withdrawn as it would have caused too much amok in the world.
Greets, Jeroen
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond. Owen
On 2011-Jun-03 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote: [..]
FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
There is a first time for everything ;)
The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond.
As you where not part of that group of folks, how do you think you can guess what their plans where? :) But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. There are then two possible results: - an actual realization at the ISPs that there might be a day that they need to do IPv6 - lawsuits from the ISPs because they got overloaded in their callcenters blabla... One of the other realizations was something that happened when the Pirate Bay went IPv6-only as their IPv4 connectivity was broken, people just appended .sixxs.org to the website and presto, they got the IPv6 version of the Pirate Bay over IPv4, including the torrents mind you. Now the website itself was not a problem, the amount of traffic from tracker was though, but blocking torrent clients and adding more boxes solved that issue mostly. The other realization was that the burden will quickly fall on sites which provide IPv6 access, and that is something that will have turned out in a similar way as the above into a situation that will not work out positively either. Just typing the above took longer than a picosecond, but it is always good to know that there are people who can think that fast and consider all the options ;) The current plan of turning on AAAAs will, in my guesses, not have a major impact though it will break things for some people: - folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites when their local DNS recursor does not handle AAAA properly. - folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites when their connectivity is broken, it will now just start breaking for sites that they 'rely' on a lot as they use them often, thus they will realize that it is broken. - folks who don't have IPv6 enabled (XP default mostly) won't notice a thing as they have no AAAA support thus nothing will happen. leaving mostly one group: - people who are technically not so clueful but do see in the news all the hype about IPv6 and suddenly start wanting it and enable IPv6 probably ending up trying to set up IPv6 and then breaking it in the process. I have seen bunches of folks already getting IPv6 tunnels solely for the reason of "being ready for IPv6 day", while they are ready if they got working IPv4 and non-broken IPv6 ;) nevertheless, the broken connectivity case is the one I think will be seen the most, as the DNS case people should have noticed already if they have issues with it, and that won't differ from the problems they already have. Greets, Jeroen
On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-Jun-03 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote: [..]
FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
There is a first time for everything ;)
The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond.
As you where not part of that group of folks, how do you think you can guess what their plans where? :)
While I wasn't there, I have talked to many of them about the subject.
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Uh, right...
There are then two possible results: - an actual realization at the ISPs that there might be a day that they need to do IPv6
I think most ISPs realize that at this point, therefore, little or nothing could be gained in this respect by such an action.
- lawsuits from the ISPs because they got overloaded in their callcenters blabla...
This is absurd. There's no valid cause of action. No content provider has a duty to prevent calls to an ISP's callcenter and there is no valid basis for an ISP to argue that Google is liable to them because they terminated services to their users.
One of the other realizations was something that happened when the Pirate Bay went IPv6-only as their IPv4 connectivity was broken, people just appended .sixxs.org to the website and presto, they got the IPv6 version of the Pirate Bay over IPv4, including the torrents mind you. Now the website itself was not a problem, the amount of traffic from tracker was though, but blocking torrent clients and adding more boxes solved that issue mostly.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the point here or how that would relate to any rational intent for World IPv6 Day.
The other realization was that the burden will quickly fall on sites which provide IPv6 access, and that is something that will have turned out in a similar way as the above into a situation that will not work out positively either.
If you got all the way down to this point before realizing that IPv6-only day at this stage was a bad idea, then, you weren't paying attention to your earlier thoughts.
Just typing the above took longer than a picosecond, but it is always good to know that there are people who can think that fast and consider all the options ;)
If you can type faster than you think, either your fingers are impressively fast, or, your brain is impressively slow. I'll leave it to you to decide which applies.
The current plan of turning on AAAAs will, in my guesses, not have a major impact though it will break things for some people:
Which is exactly the intent... To have minimal impact, increase IPv6 deployment and awareness, and identify places where things do break.
- folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites when their local DNS recursor does not handle AAAA properly.
Right, but those folks also already have a visible effect that they can debug.
- folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites when their connectivity is broken, it will now just start breaking for sites that they 'rely' on a lot as they use them often, thus they will realize that it is broken.
Many of those folks don't go to the sites where they have issues and so are unaware of the issues. This provides an opportunity to identify and correct a much larger portion of those. Finally, I think we need to make a differentiation here that you are not making. I already have IPv6 enabled, but, I have none of the issues you describe above because my IPv6 is working. The real issue is folks who have all of the following: + IPv6 enabled + Machines that think they have a legitimate IPv6 next-hop to the destination + The IPv6 next-hop is not working or folks who have: + IPv6 connectivity + Broken DNS resolvers in their path that do not properly pass along AAAA records.
- folks who don't have IPv6 enabled (XP default mostly) won't notice a thing as they have no AAAA support thus nothing will happen.
True, but, these folks are not a reason that <content provider> cannot turn on AAAA records.
leaving mostly one group: - people who are technically not so clueful but do see in the news all the hype about IPv6 and suddenly start wanting it and enable IPv6 probably ending up trying to set up IPv6 and then breaking it in the process. I have seen bunches of folks already getting IPv6 tunnels solely for the reason of "being ready for IPv6 day", while they are ready if they got working IPv4 and non-broken IPv6 ;)
Actually, there are lots of folks running default OS configurations where their OS has decided they have an IPv6 default route or such and will experience problems. They are a trivially small percentage (0.1% or less) of the population by most estimates, but, that's enough to prevent some of the large content providers from deploying AAAA records on their services at this time. Thus, the point of W6D is to provide a safe-harbour day when all the content providers can jump into the same pool together so that it doesn't look like just one of them is broken to that subset of users. This will allow us to better: + Scope the problem + Identify the affected users + Look at possible mitigation strategies + Measure and quantify the extent of the problem
nevertheless, the broken connectivity case is the one I think will be seen the most, as the DNS case people should have noticed already if they have issues with it, and that won't differ from the problems they already have.
Agreed, but, this broken connectivity case is currently a stumbling block to getting major content providers on to dual-stack, so, if we can get data that allows us to work past that point, it's a pretty big win. In all of my discussions with the W6D organizers, this has always been the stated intent and expected benefit expressed by them. As such, I simply don't see how v6 only would ever have fit into that plan. Owen
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob.
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, Jason Fesler wr ites:
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob.
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, Jason Fesler wr ites:
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob.
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: ...
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network.
Owen
Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people on the internet? I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue at that pace. Matt [0] http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [1] [1] I am strongly suspicious of their data, so my estimate lops their number in half. If you believe their data, in seven doublings, we'll be at 256B in 15 years. I find that number to be equally preposterous.
2011/6/7 Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>:
Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people on the internet?
I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue at that pace.
Well, todays Internet is made of 1B pairs of eyeballs with a roughly average of 120kbps each. Todays average in France is closer to 180kbps, it was closer to 100kbps two years ago (the 3-strikes law side-effect made individual bw consumption spikes with the emergence of many streaming services, far more BW-hungry than soft P2P protocols like eMule), whilst operators gained 8% of annual organic growth (18 to 21M subscribers). That's a bit more than 200% in 2 years. Before that, the avergae bw consumtion was relativelly stable over the last 6 years or so, only the number of residential access subscribers grew. Over the years to come, we'll still see some regions with a growing number of individual accesses while the well-connected regions will see their BW consumption grow even larger with new services. Isn't it what FTTH deployments all around the world are all about ? -- Jérôme Nicolle
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: ...
IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network.
Owen
Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people on the internet?
Ah, but, today, we don't really have 1B people on the internet, we have about 10,000,000 people on the internet and about 990,000,000 people behind NAT boxes, so, in 7 cycles of doubling we'll be at 1,280,000,000 people on the internet. ;-)
I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue at that pace.
Likely, but, I couldn't resist pointing out the reality above anyway. Even without the growth curves continuing, the IPv4 internet will become a relatively small fraction of the total internet in about 15 years. Owen
2011/6/6 Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>:
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network.
Owen
Internet' growth is measured by bandwidth rather than number of active operators or prefixes. Maxing a router's backplane or upgrading it won't change the network to a whole new thing, as most operators will just keep the old ways over and over. Considering the amount of trafic will double in the next 24 months or so, wich seems a reasonable assumption, I think IPv6 trafic has some more potential growth to come than v4, but even the later will still grow. Keeping that in mind makes me expect a very progressive curve for the significance of IPv6 in the overall bandwidth usage stats, unless eyeballs networks starts to make a major move towards IPv6 effective deployments. But honestly, while working mostly for eyballs networks, I can assure you even the largest ain't close to ready for such a move ;) -- Jérôme Nicolle
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 <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
2011/6/6 Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>:
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network.
Owen
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
In message <B53BEF53-F327-44ED-8F23-A85042E99B3F@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =
=20 In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, Jason = Fesler wr ites: populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start = calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. =20 Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web=20=
sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even=20 remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial = at=20 $dayjob. =20 IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough = for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the = internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles = (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network.
Owen
And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong and only time will tell. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <B53BEF53-F327-44ED-8F23-A85042E99B3F@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =
=20 In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, Jason = Fesler wr ites: populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start = calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. =20 Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web=20=
sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even=20 remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial = at=20 $dayjob. =20 IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough = for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the = internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles = (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network.
Owen
And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong and only time will tell.
Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with other forms of host connectivity. My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6 from my home. YMMV. Owen
In message <E230DE23-AD00-4F3D-B384-BA52FA7B3691@delong.com>, Owen DeLong writes:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20 In message <B53BEF53-F327-44ED-8F23-A85042E99B3F@delong.com>, Owen = DeLong write s:
=3D20 In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892@goat.gigo.com>, = Jason =3D Fesler wr ites:
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =3D
=20 On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: =20 populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start =3D=
and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. =3D20 Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the = web=3D20=3D =20 sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be = even=3D20 remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial = =3D at=3D20 $dayjob. =3D20 IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough = =3D for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 = only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). =20 I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the =3D internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles = =3D (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit =
calling percentage of the future network. =20 Owen =20 And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong and only time will tell. =20 Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with other forms of host connectivity.
My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6 from my home. YMMV.
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.
Owen -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
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
Thus spake Owen DeLong (owen@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 additional connections.
Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE?
Very similar, but with a static 300ms timer: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=81686 Dale
In message <8A6A00C3-BD6D-4FB4-AE82-73816DFD9EC0@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 additional connections.
Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE?
Owen
Chrome does something close using 300ms. There is code out there that does it and there really should be lots more of it as it mitigates lots of problems. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 07/06/11 15:28, Mark Andrews wrote:
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 Chrome does something close using 300ms. There is code out there
In message<8A6A00C3-BD6D-4FB4-AE82-73816DFD9EC0@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s: that does it and there really should be lots more of it as it mitigates lots of problems.
There's also a bug currently open for the equivalent functionality in Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621558 -- Neil
Owen DeLong wrote:
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond.
It'd be a great way to get a point across. ;-) -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond.
It'd be a great way to get a point across. ;-)
No, it really wouldn't. What it would be, instead, would be an event with little or no participation except people who are already very IPv6 aware and committed. The goal here is to help bring IPv6 awareness to a larger group and demonstrate that it can be deployed without significant damage to the existing infrastructure. Owen
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
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: 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.
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- //fredan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
You made the mistake of buying something that wasn't compliant with the following draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-required-02
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all?
I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example.
What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products.
Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6.
Replacing CPE will come naturally with entropy over time combined with the early-adopters. I know many people who would walk into the store today and buy a docsis 3 cable modem if cox/charter/twcable etc had ipv6 available.
And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6.
This is a whole other issue but getting better. I do want to see what Qwest (Centurylink?) plans on the consumer side as well as any form of an upgrade to the 2WIRE devices that AT&T is using. Looking at the other providers out there, it's interesting to watch the table growing daily. Somewhere around 10-20 new ASNs appear in the IPv6 table right now. (Weekends tend to show few if any adds). 2WIRE rant: These have a whole host of issues that seem to constantly cause problems. (I do like that if you send a SIP notify to devices behind them they sometimes reboot themselves and solve the problem due to their broken SIP-ALG that can't be disabled).
How fun is that?
The usual fun. We have had discussions with vendors about IPv6 support and capabilities and they are really interesting. Just ask about v6 lawful-intercept for compliance next time. Interesting days ahead, but all Is the bright future. The network is real now, even if you don't like the smell or color of IPv6. - Jared
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:01 EDT, Jared Mauch said:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
You made the mistake of buying something that wasn't compliant with the following draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-required-02
s/mistake/decision/. There, fixed that for you. I went out 3 years ago and bought a cablemodem and a router that are *also* not IPv6 ready, because it made economic sense at the time (Got them on sale, they had every *other* feature I needed, they were easier/cheaper to find at Best Buy than IPv6-ready gear, Comcast has yet to deploy IPv6 in my area, and they were cheap enough I don't mind forklift-upgrading them when IPv6 becomes actually available here.). They'll probably get replaced within 48 hours of it being *worth* replacing them. But at the time, paying literally twice as much for a box that had a feature I was not likely to be able to use before the box needed replacing *anyhow* didn't make any economic sense.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all?
irrelevant, nothing is going to break for you on june 8th. At some point you'll buy a new modem, maybe not soon.
I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example.
What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products.
Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6.
And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6.
How fun is that?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- //fredan
On 2011-Jun-03 14:27, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all?
Strange, we have 3 SixXS users who work at Zyxel and are actively terminating their stuff on Zyxel equipment which btw has AICCU support. Now, that model of a router might not be out yet, but it is coming, just don't hold your breath, but it might be a software upgrade if you are lucky. Greets, Jeroen
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
OK...
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all?
You don't. However, that's not the issue. All you need to do is make sure that your Micr0$0ft boxes don't think they have working IPv6 behind your ZyXEL and you're fine for now. Of course, if your home gateway vendor has decided that they will absolutely not support IPv6, then, it's time to get a new home gateway.
I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example.
True, but, it may not have the flash or RAM to handle the job.
What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products.
I would let them know that they are overdue for developing this skill set and better get cracking if I were their customer.
Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6.
I think part of the point of W6D is to identify these and raise awareness among the users of such devices that a vital upgrade is in their near future. By just hotwiring past the IPv6 issues, Micr0$0ft is removing this opportunity.
And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6.
That's what solutions like 6rd and 6in4 are intended for.
How fun is that?
There are many things that are fun in this industry. The next couple of years are definitely going to be interesting. Owen
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- //fredan
Have a ZyXEL VSG1432 right behind me where the IPv6 works pretty good (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem vendors could stand improving their GUI. Frank -----Original Message----- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-nanog@fredan.se] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- //fredan
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/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem vendors could stand improving their GUI.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-nanog@fredan.se] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all?
I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6
when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example.
What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products.
Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6.
And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6.
How fun is that?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- //fredan
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-nanog@fredan.se] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:45 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: frnkblk@iname.com Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day 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/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem vendors could stand improving their GUI.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-nanog@fredan.se] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all?
I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6
when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example.
What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products.
Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6.
And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6.
How fun is that?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
Uh...
-Bill
-- //fredan
Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody@pch.net] spake:
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 article... j.
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 08:25:59PM +0000, John.Herbert@usc-bt.com wrote:
Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody@pch.net] spake:
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 article...
Given that support.microsoft.com is v4-only, the latter isn't the problem. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
participants (36)
-
Aftab Siddiqui -
Alexander Maassen -
andrew.wallace -
Antonio Querubin -
Bill Woodcock -
Cameron Byrne -
Christopher Palmer -
Dale W. Carder -
Daniel Roesen -
david raistrick -
Doug Barton -
Franck Martin -
Frank Bulk -
fredrik danerklint -
Gary Buhrmaster -
goemon＠anime.net -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jaidev Sridhar -
Jared Mauch -
Jason Fesler -
Jeroen Massar -
Jeroen van Aart -
Jima -
Joel Jaeggli -
John.Herbert＠usc-bt.com -
Joly MacFie -
Jérôme Nicolle -
Mark Andrews -
Matthew Petach -
Neil Harris -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Graydon -
Tim Chown -
Tony Varriale -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin