[ok] Re: DHCPv6, was: Re: IPv6 Finally gets off the ground

Tue Apr 17 00:23:09 UTC 2007

I may well not have fully figured out what was going on
in this particular situation.  Mostly because I got tired of
trying to sort out the endless mysteries of IPv6 running
under XP Service Pack 2.

Teredo may or may not have been at issue.  I saw some
analyses indicating this might have been the case.  In any
event, after backing it and IPv6 out, all was well.

fh

-----------------
>[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/mail.archives/nanog/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
>
>