Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?

Martin Hannigan hannigan at
Mon Sep 17 17:06:25 UTC 2007

On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at> 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. :-)



More information about the NANOG mailing list