nanog mailing list archives
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:16:18 -0500
As Owen is suggesting, if would have been helpful if Microsoft's Network troubleshooting wizard in Windows Vista and 7 had an inkling about IPv6 and would check IPv6 connectivity in the same way it checks IPv6 connectivity, and work through things link 6to4 issues. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () delong com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:44 AM To: mail () jaidev info Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong <owen () 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: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf).
I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem.
For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6.
No, there is the option of troubleshooting why IPv6 doesn't work for them and working to correct it.
Hopefully the service providers & network admins get to identify and fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$ 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. Owen
-JaidevOwen On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN6A4VAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H7uoQAMrSuAXqXo+L+Wkiqx+OvwU8 v4TJEeTU8Hp+ap0Kuka0Jq2HFC2ReABwfwZEX9wywdcXKFYu1u8znVa6neX6rjcv uxghsoqZEp9A4KB/J2q/ulM6B8/40oRHK1IuHdv0fZwC0oLyJ1W10n1VzsiE3qxx JOWbn1SIPo4nXnTIVU60yDOySlsclpW3fuqQoUIHzwEZEFgYf2l7ywcPfuCvVQJw FuqASIk0c9hQJVnBKTpaIQaNdRExkYtQSs5i8+TyzxhyGx1XGDOeJoRHRBQhSfcS DS8Vuwvblh+UjGFDIEF9Oen7NxrK2xjBCJIDV+MbJwAJdjs5wM3H9nFdhCX9Z2cl TRIj4/qQcS7m8cl4gNFY3nplALrWHjs2WK8jk0HlDnEgvSe7D2YC6Te5vnGgY9sX JXif1D36Pzx1V1JwbmMIwvvlUalPH/jyciMVUGrMMKc+0w7/75IerzGsSabdTIzJ t0/4jh5/h8db+q37CfN1Xj/gWkBcIyXmGGCd3pny4+YJwI5hnspWoeRq5lkB64Pn zDCJANGd5PZxtcTBgYJkZCK+sNjzycThkS1UP8pKdajbyQNlbRWkDFbQwMQ0DQEa IanX3BioesZmfashzRu+khdczhLVtFLKLUT7/yI2RqQOekx5sO+HqzTIiIIp5mkd KbOBvdIvnaz5FI94I8jk =OyB3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE------- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
Current thread:
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol), (continued)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Joly MacFie (Jun 07)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Mark Andrews (Jun 06)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Owen DeLong (Jun 06)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Mark Andrews (Jun 06)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Owen DeLong (Jun 07)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Dale W. Carder (Jun 07)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Mark Andrews (Jun 07)
- Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol) Neil Harris (Jun 07)
- Re: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol (Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day) Jeroen van Aart (Jun 06)
- Re: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol (Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day) Owen DeLong (Jun 06)
- RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Frank Bulk (Jun 03)
- Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Jared Mauch (Jun 03)
- Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 03)
- Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Joel Jaeggli (Jun 03)
- Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Jeroen Massar (Jun 03)
- Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Owen DeLong (Jun 03)
- RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Frank Bulk (Jun 03)
- Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day fredrik danerklint (Jun 07)
- RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Frank Bulk (Jun 07)