With regards to glibc, 2.3.6 is stone old. RFC 3484 support has matured a lot since Etch
I think my rebuttal of your OS X analysis was a bit unclear, so let me try to make it a bit better. First of all, note that the sentence you're quoted does not mention 6to4 in any way. Second, note the part I wrote about “hits that come through”. The User-Agent is recorded every time the experiment is sent out, not only when it comes in. Thus, you can draw a direct correlation of OS X in the User-Agent string less likely to come back; your analysis was “browsers with Mac OS X in the User-Agent string are more commonly using 6to4 addresses”, which just isn't the same. (It's also true, of course, but the “OS X more often is broken” analysis doesn't depend on that at all.) If you did an experiment which only registered IPv6 hits that actually came through, your criticism would have been valid, but that's not how this was done.
/* Steinar */
Look at the page -- several Linux distributions (Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandriva, Debian) now prefer IPv4 over 6to4 pretty unconditionally (unless you're trying to connect to a 6to4 host, but that's pretty obscure for a web server). The rest only prefer IPv4 over 6to4 when the IPv4 is not NAT-ed.
/* Steinar */
No, the reality is that getaddrinfo() on most platforms actually follow RFC3484 and prioritize IPv4 over 6to4. (There's a clear distinction in the RFC between 6to4 and other forms of IPv6.) OS X doesn't and uncritically tries IPv6 -- that is, of course, assuming you don't crash into any of the other resolver bugs they introduced in 10.5.
It should be said that if you follow RFC3484 to the letter, 6to4 will be preferred over NAT-ed IPv4. However, that was most likely just an oversight in the standard (the draft revision makes changes to fix that), and most vendors (certainly Microsoft, and most of the major Linux distros, although not glibc upstream yet) has made that change. However, this is moot with regards to OS X, since they don't actually seem to follow RFC3484 in the first place.
You are also wrong in the Airports are the only CPEs that try to enable 6to4 out of the box -- some Linksys models do this, among others. The Airports are, however, most likely the most common. You're also right in that uncritically enabling this is not a good idea; the CPE should at least have done a routability test first.
Finally, you're assuming the statistics here are based only on the User-Agent string on the dualstack hits that come through. They're not -- please read the experiment design more carefully. There is a direct correlation measured between using OS X (as seen in the User-Agent string that fetches the iframe) and inability to fetch the dualstack image. In no way does this result depend on correlation between OS X and 6to4.
/* Steinar */
Hi,
A few errors here:
/* Steinar */
Hi. I work (among other things) with IPv6 in Google, although I was only distantly released to this launch (some of my code was used in the monitoring components). It's nice to see we're getting attention
You're entirely right that at the moment, only web search has an AAAA record. (However, with some trickery, you can get several other Google services running too -- just add
Whether there should be services that are not available over IPv4, though, is an entirely different discussion. If you had a cool service and could offer it to the world, would you keep it away from 99.9% of the Internet just because you could?
/* Steinar */
- Software engineer, Google Norway
Filed under: Networking
If you'll recall, the IEEE gave the all important thumbs up to 100G as the next Ethernet speed, and while we've seen such a milestone met on the Internet2, Verizon's looking to bring it to the masses in just twelve short months. According to Fred Briggs, Verizon Business' executive vice president of operations and technology, the firm is aiming to "deploy 100G network capabilities over all its major routes within the United States." Verizon actually tested out its 100Gbps capabilities last year on a video transmission from Tampa to Miami, Florida, and apparently, the results "showed that it could deploy 100G on routes and not disrupt current wavelengths." Granted, we wouldn't expect many consumers to actually be able to take advantage of all this speed right away, but even if you're not down with (or nearby) any of Verizon's forthcoming offerings, there's always DOCSIS 3.0.Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
