Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
owen at delong.com
Fri Jun 3 07:44:12 UTC 2011
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom.
>> Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable
>> to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than
>> merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4.
>> That's the path I chose.
> I guess you're all missing the point here. I've never agreed too much
> with M$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature
> these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly
> implemented networks / tunnels (see:
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if
Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past
> For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6.
No, there is the option of troubleshooting why IPv6 doesn't work for
them and working to correct it.
> Hopefully the service providers & network admins get to identify and
> fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$
> bashing, but not for this reason.
I didn't see where in the M$ propaganda it suggested calling your ISP
or network admin to have them help you fix the issue, so, I don't see
how what they are proposing has any hope of enabling this.
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
More information about the NANOG