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

[Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa () sunlightdata com>]

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