North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: DHCPv6, was: Re: IPv6 Finally gets off the ground

  • From: Jeroen Massar
  • Date: Mon Apr 16 18:47:04 2007
  • Openpgp: id=333E7C23

[hmmmm how come I didn't parse any operational content in this post...]

Fred Heutte wrote:
[..]
> I spent a couple hours in a hotel recently trying to untangle why
> using the DSL system I could see the net but couldn't get to any
> sites other than a few I tried at random like the BBC, Yahoo
> and Google.
>
> That's because they are among the few that apparently have 
> IPv6 enabled web systems.

They don't have "IPv6 enabled web systems", a lot of people wished that
they did. What your problem most likely was, was a broken DNS server,
which, when queried for an AAAA simply doesn't respond.

Most Network Operators (to keep it a bit on topic for this mailinglist)
can't do anything about broken DNS servers at End User sites.

Note that this has *nothing* to do with Teredo, which even doesn't
activate itself when it can't get packets to be relayed. You can't thus
blame Microsoft for this. The DNS server is broken, not them. I know it
is always fun to blame M$ but really it isn't true.

Note also that the BBC once did have a AAAA related DNS problem, that
was in 2002 though and was quickly resolved:
http://www.merit.edu/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2002-04/msg00559.html
These had another kind of problem, they returned NXDOMAIN, so that it
looked like the requested label was not there; much better still than
the simple ignore and forget of the End User DNS problems.


> I was once, circa 1995 or so, fairly enamored of IPv6.  Now it 
> makes me wonder just exactly what problem it is good at solving.

Primarily only one: a *lot* more address space. Enough to provide our
children's children children and the rest of the world with unique
addressable address space. Nothing more nothing less.

> Don't get me wrong -- it's not the fault of IPv6 and its designers
> and advocates, it's that the world has moved on and other
> methods have been found for the questions it was designed to 
> address.

As it primarily resolves the address space problem and it solves this
perfectly well, how exactly did your world move on by staying limited to
32bits and only 4 million addresses while there are many more people on
this planet, not even thinking of subnets or having multiple addresses
per person?

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature