Re: Sprint NOC? Are you awake now?
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working. Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 04:10:27AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I've just upgraded a Cisco 7206 for a customer with a DS3 and we're now ready to take full routes. No one is answering at support, email has gone unanswered for thirty minutes - if someone at the Sprint NOC is awake please call Neal or Mike at 402-426-6136 - we'd really like to get this done before customers start waking up ...
Since when was nanog a way to get in touch with NOCs?
Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Operations | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk | id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
-- mailto:neal@lists.rauhauser.net phone:402-301-9555 "After all that I've been through, you're the only one who matters, you never left me in the dark here on my own" - Widespread Panic
Sprint's support contact structure is rather specialized, rather than one-size-fits-all. http://www.sprint.net/contacts.html Could you kindly verify that you've tried the right place before sending NANOG to General Quarters? Thanx
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 04:10:27AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I've just upgraded a Cisco 7206 for a customer with a DS3 and we're now ready to take full routes. No one is answering
at support,
email has gone unanswered for thirty minutes - if someone at the Sprint NOC is awake please call Neal or Mike at 402-426-6136 - we'd really like to get this done before customers start waking up ...
Since when was nanog a way to get in touch with NOCs?
Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Operations | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk | id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
-- mailto:neal@lists.rauhauser.net phone:402-301-9555 "After all that I've been through, you're the only one who matters, you never left me in the dark here on my own" - Widespread Panic
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine. http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
- Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Jared The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out. On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good # getent ipnodes puck.nether.net 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net # traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ? traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms 2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms 3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26) 34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms 4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms * 122.248 ms 5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms 184.211 ms 184.405 ms 6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms 233.555 ms 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms # I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 nenad Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
- Jared
-- Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out. On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good
Sounds like a sun related issue, I'm seeing no problem with my other IPv6 enabled hosts. eg: ;; Total query time: 166 msec ;; FROM: punk.nether.net to SERVER: puck 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 2 11:37:44 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 509
# getent ipnodes puck.nether.net 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net # traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ? traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms 2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms 3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26) 34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms 4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms * 122.248 ms 5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms 184.211 ms 184.405 ms 6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms 233.555 ms 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms #
I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
phat:~> getent ipnodes puck.nether.net. 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net phat:~> traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 3ffe:a00:f:4::2 @ le0:1 traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rtr2-eth1-1.blackrose.org (3ffe:a00:f:4::1) 1.433 ms 1.509 ms 1.318 ms 2 nnn-3640-tu2 (3ffe:a00:f:1::9) 84.991 ms 24.209 ms 12.557 ms 3 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 12.423 ms 15.002 ms 46.298 ms
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
- Jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Jared Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time) "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage. That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site. Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ? thanks nenad Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out. On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good
Sounds like a sun related issue, I'm seeing no problem with my other IPv6 enabled hosts.
eg:
;; Total query time: 166 msec ;; FROM: punk.nether.net to SERVER: puck 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 2 11:37:44 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 509
# getent ipnodes puck.nether.net 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net # traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ? traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms 2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms 3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26) 34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms 4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms * 122.248 ms 5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms 184.211 ms 184.405 ms 6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms 233.555 ms 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms #
I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
phat:~> getent ipnodes puck.nether.net. 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net phat:~> traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 3ffe:a00:f:4::2 @ le0:1 traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rtr2-eth1-1.blackrose.org (3ffe:a00:f:4::1) 1.433 ms 1.509 ms 1.318 ms 2 nnn-3640-tu2 (3ffe:a00:f:1::9) 84.991 ms 24.209 ms 12.557 ms 3 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 12.423 ms 15.002 ms 46.298 ms
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
- Jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time) "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage.
really, why not? I don't know anyone who wants to use v6 only if v4 connection attemts fail.
That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site.
Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ?
thanks
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out. On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good
Sounds like a sun related issue, I'm seeing no problem with my other IPv6 enabled hosts.
eg:
;; Total query time: 166 msec ;; FROM: punk.nether.net to SERVER: puck 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 2 11:37:44 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 509
# getent ipnodes puck.nether.net 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net # traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ? traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms 2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms 3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26) 34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms 4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms * 122.248 ms 5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms 184.211 ms 184.405 ms 6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms 233.555 ms 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms #
I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
phat:~> getent ipnodes puck.nether.net. 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net phat:~> traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 3ffe:a00:f:4::2 @ le0:1 traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rtr2-eth1-1.blackrose.org (3ffe:a00:f:4::1) 1.433 ms 1.509 ms 1.318 ms 2 nnn-3640-tu2 (3ffe:a00:f:1::9) 84.991 ms 24.209 ms 12.557 ms 3 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 12.423 ms 15.002 ms 46.298 ms
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
- Jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network. Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time) "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage.
really, why not? I don't know anyone who wants to use v6 only if v4 connection attemts fail.
That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site.
Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ?
thanks
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out. On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good
Sounds like a sun related issue, I'm seeing no problem with my other IPv6 enabled hosts.
eg:
;; Total query time: 166 msec ;; FROM: punk.nether.net to SERVER: puck 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 2 11:37:44 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 509
# getent ipnodes puck.nether.net 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net # traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ? traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms 2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms 3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26) 34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms 4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms * 122.248 ms 5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms 184.211 ms 184.405 ms 6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms 233.555 ms 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms #
I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
phat:~> getent ipnodes puck.nether.net. 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net phat:~> traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 3ffe:a00:f:4::2 @ le0:1 traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rtr2-eth1-1.blackrose.org (3ffe:a00:f:4::1) 1.433 ms 1.509 ms 1.318 ms 2 nnn-3640-tu2 (3ffe:a00:f:1::9) 84.991 ms 24.209 ms 12.557 ms 3 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 12.423 ms 15.002 ms 46.298 ms
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
- Jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4 address to your browsers but don´t tell other people to break their systems because your environment is broken. Pete
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:47:14PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4 address to your browsers but don´t tell other people to break their systems because your environment is broken.
I wonder if I should re-enable ecn as well then. get those broken people to fix their systems...but I don't think i'm an important enough internet resource for people to listen to me. btw, if you http://<ip-of-puck>/ you will get the correct web pages. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend. This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is. I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over nenad Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:47:14PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4 address to your browsers but don´t tell other people to break their systems because your environment is broken.
I wonder if I should re-enable ecn as well then.
get those broken people to fix their systems...but I don't think i'm an important enough internet resource for people to listen to me.
btw, if you http://<ip-of-puck>/ you will get the correct web pages.
- jared
-- Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
Nenad Pudar wrote:
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend. This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is. I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and
And you don´t find it even a little bit suspect that you are the only one having this problem? Pete
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:47:14PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4 address to your browsers but don´t tell other people to break their systems because your environment is broken.
I wonder if I should re-enable ecn as well then.
get those broken people to fix their systems...but I don't think i'm an important enough internet resource for people to listen to me.
btw, if you http://<ip-of-puck>/ you will get the correct web pages.
- jared
(btw, for those of you who think that IPv6 isn't in use, you may now safely ignore this thread). On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:34:18PM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend. This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is. I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over
i would say that I serve a moderate number of web pages a day off my web server. (warning, big!) here are some statistics: http://puck.nether.net/stats.html this is the first complaint i've received of accessing puck via ipv6 (aside from when i was running a buggy kernel that would cause it to stop responding to the v6 address periodically). here's some stats for my sendmail as well: puck:~> grep sm-mta /var/log/maillog | wc -l 30350 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog | wc -l 405 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog.Mon | wc -l 324 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog.Fri | wc -l 324 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog.Thu | wc -l 865 This means i'm getting a small number of emails sent via IPv6 without troubles. Might I suggest the problem is on your end. Do you have all the latest solaris patches installed? Either that, or ifconfig down your ipv6 interface or remove the autoconf from your machine as necessary until you have a chance to test it. In the mean time, you can visit the webpage here: http://204.42.254.5/netops/ I try to always use / referencing urls, so it should work just fine for you. If you notice a url that does not just reference /, please let me know. - Jared
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:47:14PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4 address to your browsers but don´t tell other people to break their systems because your environment is broken.
I wonder if I should re-enable ecn as well then.
get those broken people to fix their systems...but I don't think i'm an important enough internet resource for people to listen to me.
btw, if you http://<ip-of-puck>/ you will get the correct web pages.
- jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
I do not send e-maol to complain about my connection to puck.nether.net ,neither I claim I have a excelent ipv6 connection ,what triggerd my-e-mail was the someone complining to not be able to reach your site. I have more than few ways to making it reachable . My e-mail was more to rise the general diskussion about this issue and puck.nether.net was only the example Again my point is that your site (or any other that use the same dns for ipv4 and 6) may be "blackholed" by ipv6 (it is not the question primary about the quality ipv6 connction it is the fact that your ipv4 connection which may be excelant is blackholed with your ipv6 connection which may not be good and to me the most obvious solution is not to use the same dns name for both) for the people coming through 6bone or even for the majority of people not peering with Verio. This the trace from 6 bone looking glass traceroute6 to 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8) from 2001:6b8::204, 30 hops max, 12 byte packets 1 6bone-gw4 0.749 ms 0.537 ms 0.506 ms 2 gw1-bk1 1.103 ms 1.101 ms 1.046 ms 3 tu-16.r00.plalca01.us.b6.verio.net 186.424 ms 186.129 ms 187.344 ms 4 tu-800.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net 246.76 ms 246.798 ms 246.759 ms 5 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net 458.76 ms 446.925 ms 496.061 ms 6 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 450.172 ms 477.296 ms 453.895 ms nenad Jared Mauch wrote:
(btw, for those of you who think that IPv6 isn't in use, you may now safely ignore this thread).
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:34:18PM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend. This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is. I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over
i would say that I serve a moderate number of web pages a day off my web server. (warning, big!) here are some statistics: http://puck.nether.net/stats.html
this is the first complaint i've received of accessing puck via ipv6 (aside from when i was running a buggy kernel that would cause it to stop responding to the v6 address periodically).
here's some stats for my sendmail as well:
puck:~> grep sm-mta /var/log/maillog | wc -l 30350 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog | wc -l 405 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog.Mon | wc -l 324 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog.Fri | wc -l 324 puck:~> grep IPv6 /var/log/maillog.Thu | wc -l 865
This means i'm getting a small number of emails sent via IPv6 without troubles. Might I suggest the problem is on your end. Do you have all the latest solaris patches installed?
Either that, or ifconfig down your ipv6 interface or remove the autoconf from your machine as necessary until you have a chance to test it. In the mean time, you can visit the webpage here: http://204.42.254.5/netops/ I try to always use / referencing urls, so it should work just fine for you. If you notice a url that does not just reference /, please let me know.
- Jared
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:47:14PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used. And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection. In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4 address to your browsers but don´t tell other people to break their systems because your environment is broken.
I wonder if I should re-enable ecn as well then.
get those broken people to fix their systems...but I don't think i'm an important enough internet resource for people to listen to me.
btw, if you http://<ip-of-puck>/ you will get the correct web pages.
- jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
Nenad Pudar wrote:
Again my point is that your site (or any other that use the same dns for ipv4 and 6) may be "blackholed" by ipv6 (it is not the question primary about the quality ipv6 connction it is the fact that your ipv4 connection which may be excelant is blackholed with your ipv6 connection which may not be good and to me the most obvious solution is not to use the same dns name for both) for the people coming through 6bone or even for the majority of people not peering with Verio.
It's a valid point, except that IPv4 could just as easily have had a problem. Network connectivity issues happen. Whether one uses IPv4 or IPv6 in the connection is not decided by the server, but by the client. If an IPv6 path is really bad, the client should switch to an IPv4 path and vice versa. If the software in use by the client does not make this easy, it is not the fault of the server. Perhaps a better solution than different DNS names for IP versions should be better client abilities. Is it unreasonable for the client system to detect that the IPv6 path seems unreasonable and quickly check to see if there is a better IPv4 path? Or perhaps the software utilizing the IP stack should allow the user to specify which method they'd like to utilize at that moment in time (ie, web-browser; view site with IPv4|IPv6). This would solve the problem you are indicating and not overcomplicate the server side which is working fine. People don't want to learn to type www.ipv6.example.com and www.ipv4.example.com. It makes much more sense to just change the software to choose which method it wants. Not that software vendors would incorporate such features. -Jack
This the trace from 6 bone looking glass
traceroute6 to 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8) from 2001:6b8::204, 30 hops max, 12 byte packets 1 6bone-gw4 0.749 ms 0.537 ms 0.506 ms 2 gw1-bk1 1.103 ms 1.101 ms 1.046 ms 3 tu-16.r00.plalca01.us.b6.verio.net 186.424 ms 186.129 ms 187.344 ms 4 tu-800.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net 246.76 ms 246.798 ms 246.759 ms 5 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net 458.76 ms 446.925 ms 496.061 ms 6 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 450.172 ms 477.296 ms 453.895 ms
On dinsdag, sep 2, 2003, at 23:18 Europe/Amsterdam, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Again my point is that your site (or any other that use the same dns for ipv4 and 6) may be "blackholed" by ipv6 (it is not the question primary about the quality ipv6 connction it is the fact that your ipv4 connection which may be excelant is blackholed with your ipv6 connection which may not be good and to me the most obvious solution is not to use the same dns name for both)
First of all, why are you repeating everything the previous posters said? This is a waste of bandwidth. Not only on the network, but also where it really matters: in the synapses. The real problem is that your software assumes that if there are several addresses in the DNS, it can just pick one and assume that address works. That has never been a good idea, but in IPv4 you can get away with it. In IPv6, you can't. IPv6 hosts are required to support more than a single address per interface, and when people actually use this then it's only a matter of time before address #1 becomes unreachable while address #2 is still reachable. So this means you have to try them all. The new name to address mechanisms for IPv6 are such that you can ask for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses or both for a certain FQDN. If you choose both, you'll usually get an IPv6 address first. I don't see how it would be reasonable to have separate FQDNs for all these addresses and have the user try them all rather than simply have the application walk through the list of addresses and try them all until it gets a live one. (And yes, I've suffered from decreased performance because of non-optimal or even nonexisting IPv6 connectivity, but that's the price of being an early adapter.) Now if your argument is that it's not a good idea to depend on applications handling this they way they should _today_ that is something I'm willing to discuss, although I don't necessarily agree. BTW, my IPv6 connectivity for www.bgpexpert.com is in some ways better than IPv4 as there is an extra path available over IPv6 that isn't available over IPv4.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jared Mauch wrote:
(btw, for those of you who think that IPv6 isn't in use, you may now safely ignore this thread).
Then I will safely respond to it in that case ;)
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:34:18PM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend. This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is. I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over
I think you should rather paste some traceroutes or use GRH to find out where the problem is. Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ for some nice diagnostic tools. And you might want to read Minimal IPv6 Peering by Robert Kießling: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt
i would say that I serve a moderate number of web pages a day off my web server. (warning, big!) here are some statistics: http://puck.nether.net/stats.html
this is the first complaint i've received of accessing puck via ipv6 (aside from when i was running a buggy kernel that would cause it to stop responding to the v6 address periodically).
<SNIP> And it works fine here behind 6bone and RIPE space. (Oh and yes this mail should reach puck over IPv6 :) I do have to note that there is quite a big amount of latency at least from Intouch: 2001:418::/32 2001:6e0::2 8954 33 2914 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8) 327.307 ms 308.8 ms 308.631 ms BIT on the other hand as a direct link to Verio... 2001:418::/32 > 2001:7b8::290:6900:1cc6:d800 12859 2914 6 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 146.572 ms 298.737 ms 146.726 ms 13 puck.nether.net (204.42.254.5) 144.612 ms 146.984 ms 129.067 ms Almost the same latency :)
Either that, or ifconfig down your ipv6 interface or remove the autoconf from your machine as necessary until you have a chance to test it. In the mean time, you can visit the webpage here: http://204.42.254.5/netops/ I try to always use / referencing urls, so it should work just fine for you. If you notice a url that does not just reference /, please let me know.
A smallish hint here: $ORIGIN example.com. www AAAA 2001:db8::1 A 10.100.13.42 www.ipv6 AAAA 2001:db8::1 www.ipv4 A 10.100.13.42 This way one always has a "forced" fallback to a certain service Though for HTTP one prolly has to add them to the virtual hosts. Internet Explorer tends to nicely fall back from IPv6 to IPv4 after a certain timeout depending on how fast an icmp unreach comes back etc and prolly other factors. I haven't tested it with the new Opera 7.20b on Windows though which btw does IPv6 ;) I also don't know how Mozilla handles it as it doesn't do IPv6 on Windows... and I have no X box to test it at this moment... Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP1Ug1imqKFIzPnwjEQKeMgCeIAcj8vDU7KnvLo7kiEz9fBhjXWUAnA9G GItH+RCakIiTVYE8SZ2M9VYv =ZA0L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:34:18 -0400 From: Nenad Pudar <npudar@teleglobe.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend. This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is. I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and
evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over
I think you miss the point. If your system is broken, don't ask the world to change to accommodate it. Fix your system. If your network provider does not provide good IPv6 service, ask them to fix their problems. I can assure you that the largest part of the world gets to puck via IPv6 just fine. It's just 4 hops from PAIX in Palo Alto. (I might mention that there is no PTR record for 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8.) If you are the only sane person, it's most likely that you are wrong about being sane. That is not certain, but you probably won't get a lot of support from all the crazy people. It's also really time to start getting away form the 6bone. It does not provide very optimal routes and really should be going away some day. Separate IPv6 and IPv4 names breaks things down the road. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Nenad Pudar wrote:
OK The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used.
Wrong the v6 connection for your host isn't good enough to use. It works fine from here...
And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection.
that's a routing issue for you, not a problem with the dns.
In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
So really what you want is for you dns resolver to understand the qualitiative differwences between the v6 and v4 paths to the same host, that's seems somewhat unreasonable to expect from the dns.
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time) "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage.
really, why not? I don't know anyone who wants to use v6 only if v4 connection attemts fail.
That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site.
Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ?
thanks
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0400, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out. On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good
Sounds like a sun related issue, I'm seeing no problem with my other IPv6 enabled hosts.
eg:
;; Total query time: 166 msec ;; FROM: punk.nether.net to SERVER: puck 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 2 11:37:44 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 509
# getent ipnodes puck.nether.net 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net # traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ? traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms 2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms 3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26) 34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms 4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms * 122.248 ms 5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms 184.211 ms 184.405 ms 6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms 233.555 ms 7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms #
I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
phat:~> getent ipnodes puck.nether.net. 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net 204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net phat:~> traceroute puck.nether.net traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 3ffe:a00:f:4::2 @ le0:1 traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rtr2-eth1-1.blackrose.org (3ffe:a00:f:4::1) 1.433 ms 1.509 ms 1.318 ms 2 nnn-3640-tu2 (3ffe:a00:f:1::9) 84.991 ms 24.209 ms 12.557 ms 3 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 12.423 ms 15.002 ms 46.298 ms
nenad
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
>I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone > > > > > > Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
>channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its >much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of >users dialing a phone right next to where you're working. > > > > > > - Jared
--
Nenad Pudar IP Network Engineer TELEGLOBE phone: 1 514 868 8053
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
At 11:56 -0700 9/2/03, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time) "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage.
really, why not? I don't know anyone who wants to use v6 only if v4 connection attemts fail.
This problem has been discussed at some length in various of the IPv6 working groups (I can't even recall which ones - they all blur together ;) and by Sebastien Roy, Alain Durand and James Paugh in draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt By the way, my IPv6 connectivity to nether.net is actually better than v4: ping -c 10 -q puck.nether.net PING puck.nether.net (204.42.254.5): 56 data bytes --- puck.nether.net ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 214.071/251.098/289.917 ms ping6 -c 10 -q puck.nether.net PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:468:901:1:203:93ff:fed6:dfcc --> 2001:418:3f4::2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 --- puck.nether.net ping6 statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 161.488/174.261/217.397 ms Bill.
Nenad Pudar wrote:
Jared
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time) "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage. That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site.
Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ?
Maybe you should not enable IPv6 in your systems if it does not work with your connectivity? The whole idea is to have both AAAA and A records with the same name so a client can choose IPv6 where enabled. Pete
participants (11)
-
Bill Owens -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jack Bates -
Jared Mauch -
Jeroen Massar -
Joel Jaeggli -
Kevin Oberman -
Mark Borchers -
neal rauhauser -
Nenad Pudar -
Petri Helenius