North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?

  • From: Martin Hannigan
  • Date: Mon Sep 17 13:11:18 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=aMXCmsZ55fKOPwlnc6cBneD7DmZqr5t1UqrImqoTRK4=; b=B4qT2607W2UQ3JuX3sqt0wEGCSAOV2sr422FxvF2sDdvU9q5eNCUDfH2kP9kbGNKYStu70J6AxOXzbNn75MCQNyROBGnIKDe7XV+vj0xGlekHfWtwVFL1ne5X485vPIIUVU2+akcxTQZtwFzTD39tjecKQmEe2910J02LXYB0GM=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=IQq9Ivbthra6rcFPuNxkctXWrD+U+AZjvxGGqfinZwbx8rzHR7+iVsvVDbfdLM1YHZ72c9qhitEoyYrhUmCVx0P36n9s86qPLi2g9zrfM2wXz5xPXNxbkOFOiKfhBGF2dvHb6us1+Ma7kdidtkmuz3V8Nw9xr7hxWJfse0VuPEI=
On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15-sep-2007, at 21:25, Barrett Lyon wrote:
>
> > The other thought that occurred to me, does FF/Safari/IE have any
> > ability to default back to v4 if v6 is not working or behaving
> > badly?  This could be a helpful transition feature but may be more
> > trouble than it's worth.
>
> Browsers are pretty good at falling back on a different address in
> general / IPv4 in particular when the initial try doesn't work, but
> it does take too long if the packet is silently dropped somewhere. If
> there is an ICMP unreachable there is no real delay. Worst case is a
> path MTU discovery black hole, then browsers generally don't fall back.

Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
interface segregated.

 I have also read Jordi? saying that no dual naming should occur, but
I think this is unrealistic. (Sorry if I misquoted you, Jordi)

>It would be good if more ISPs deployed 6to4 gateways so the 6to4
>experience would be better.

We are. There are an unending supply of small details that are in the
way at the moment. :-)

Best,

Marty