With regards to glibc, 2.3.6 is stone old. RFC 3484 support has matured a lot since Etch :-) Actually you need to go to Debian unstable to find a glibc that's patched to prefer NATed IPv4 over 6to4.

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:

• The host has fully working IPv6 connectivity on the AAAA record it advertises. You could easily have checked this given the data in the report.
• This is a 6to4, not 6over4, which is something completely different.
• The 6bone has not existed for years.

/* Steinar */

Finland's air force flew into the ash cloud, and released some photos of the damage. It ain't pretty.

My vote's on cash grab.

Yes, we certainly know how the PS3 got popular because of its ability to install Linux and from the recommendations from the people doing just that.

Then you should really take a look at the games being published by Paradox Interactive. Classics such as the Europa Universalis-series and the Hearts of Iron-series are great strategy games. They're also publishing several other games in the same genre and I'd strongly suggest taking a closer look for games that play well and don't need a brand new gaming rig.

As a pretty awesome update, Google's emailed us today with tips for making our AdWords campaign more effective. You might think they're subtly letting us know we can get back to sending them money every month, but no, our account is still dead.

We don't sell anything online, every sale is a result of discussions and old-fashioned payments and elbow grease. Our software is configured based on discussions with the client, our training is done online one-to-one with staff in our office. Customers who reach our site can read about the software, view some screenshots etc, but will have to submit a request for demo or call us to get more info or arrange a purchase. It's a very low-volume, hands-on kind of business, and we're all just stunned to be singled out by Google without warning or recourse.

We can't help but think it's a misunderstanding or mistake, but in the wake of the big Google Silence (tm) treatment, we can't know for sure, or resolve the problem. It's frustrating: I've always defended Google's choices, and I continue to defend this one to the boss. Their business, their choice, right? If they don't want our money, they shouldn't be forced to take it if they'd rather not deal with us. I just wish they were more human in their actions. We're quite disheartened by this brusque treatment.