Subject: AW: www.ietf.org.

From: "Matthias Krawutschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:15:52 -0000

Clint,

this is wrong. If i do that I've got the correct page from IETF.
Please clear your Cache or proxy.

Matthias

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Clint Chaplin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. August 2003 17:56
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: www.ietf.org.

What's going on with the www.ietf.org web site?  All I'm getting is the
default Apache test page.....

Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:09:31 -0400 (EDT)

i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org

scott

> default Apache test page.....

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:48:02 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org

Which is quite logical as that host doesn't have any AAAA's.

If you want to reach the IETF site using only IPv6,
you could use http://www.ietf.org.sixxs.org
(see http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net for more about that)

Notez bien that www.ietf.org has two hosts:
$ host -t any www.ietf.org
www.ietf.org            A       132.151.6.21
www.ietf.org            A       4.17.168.6

And if you have a problem with the site it might
be very interresting to also include a traceroute
to the host you are having problems with.
Also a good debugger is to simply telnet to port
80 of the host or to do some tcpdumps.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:58:42 -0400 (EDT)

> Which is quite logical as that host doesn't have any AAAA's.

exactly.

> (see http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net for more about that)

why is the IETF on a third level domain?

> ------------ Output from gpg ------------
> gpg: Signature made Thu Aug 21 15:47:53 2003 EDT using DSA key ID 333E7C23
> gpg: WARNING: signature digest conflict in message
> gpg: Can't check signature: general error
>
>

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:29:47 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> > Which is quite logical as that host doesn't have any AAAA's.

Then what is the problem, they didn't publish any
IPv6 addresses because there is no IPv6 access there.
Same goes for about 99% of the internet. If they
where publishing IPv6 records then they would be in err.

> why is the IETF on a third level domain?

Read the site, it's a rewriting proxy gimmick.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:26:53 +0900

> i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org

try ping

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:38:53 -0400 (EDT)

> > i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org

well right all that works Randy.  i can ping6 6bone.net all day long too,
via 6in4 encapsulation.  62 hops away.  not a problem.  so this server has
a route to the 6-bone.  and i'm in the third world, Florida.  no multicast
routing here either. which would be handy, but a remote x session
handles all the rtp i can eat, so that solves that for now.  what is
missing, it appears is a v6 route to www.ietf.org.  and an associated AAAA and v6 address for www.ietf.org,
of course.  unless there is a reason why that host should not be using v6
services, hmm?

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:15:11 +0900

> unless there is a reason why that host should not be using v6
> services, hmm?

because it works now?

v6 has one salient feature, more address space.  religious selling
does not help the case for v6.  make it work simply and directly,
not through 42 hacks.  get router, dsl, ... vendors to support it.
then it will be used.

randy

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:25:58 -0400 (EDT)

> > unless there is a reason why that host should not be using v6

not unless we are waiting for a zone refresh.

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @partybus ietf.org AAAA
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 55312
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ietf.org.			IN	AAAA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ietf.org.		3590	IN	SOA	ns.ietf.org. action.CNRI.Reston.VA.US. 2003071402 3600 600 2400000 86400

;; Query time: 2 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.100.1#53(partybus)
;; WHEN: Sun Aug 24 00:46:21 2003
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 89

>
> v6 has one salient feature, more address space.

well, the hex addresses are nice too, from a security standpoint.

> religious selling

mine works because of 1 hack:)

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:57:07 -0700

Randy Bush wrote:
> ...
> v6 has one salient feature, more address space.  religious 
> selling does not help the case for v6.  

I don't think making a server accessable over IPv6 is religious selling.
Some might even consider it 'running code', ... or don't we believe in that
anymore?

> make it work simply 
> and directly, not through 42 hacks.  get router, dsl, ... 
> vendors to support it. then it will be used.

Therein lies the problem. Unless a critical mass is using IPv6, there is
little incentive for router & dsl vendors to build it. Even when they do,
service providers are slow if not reluctant to turn it on. As much as you
don't like them, some of the 42 hacks are required to establish that
critical mass. We don't need all of them everywhere, but each has its own
warts. Different warts are acceptable or not in different environments. We
need to provide a reasonably small set of mechanisms, with documented warts,
so that the critical mass can pull the SP's (who in turn pull the product
vendors) into the simple deployment you are asking for. 

Bottom line, the end user doesn't know or care about IP or any version
issues. They type names, or click on links, and magic happens. It is our job
to make that magic happen in more places, and as transparently as possible. 

Tony

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:36:33 +0200

> because it works now?

But for some boxes only if I use NAT, and having to use NAT makes for a 
liberal definition of "works".

> not through 42 hacks.  get router, dsl, ... vendors to support it.

So when everyone else is running IPv6, the IETF will start doing it 
too? Not good enough. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The 
proof of the protocol is in running production traffic over it.

The IETF www server uses Apache2 which supports IPv6 just fine, BTW. As 
do all the major OS vendors and a good number of router vendors. If 
there is a reason why it is not a good idea to run www.ietf.org over 
IPv6 at this point in time: no big deal. "It works now" doesn't qualify 
as such a reason, IMO.

But I see psg.com (which handles mail for ops.ietf.org) now actually 
accepts connections on port 25 as per the MX and AAAA records that have 
been in place for a long time so I guess there is progress.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:22:23 +0900

> Some might even consider it 'running code', ... or don't we believe in that

with the current size of the ietf product set, one can not run all
code.  the fact is that all users can get to www.ietf.org.  no, i
can not get to it usefully using v6, readably on my i-mode phone,
etc.  so stick to the middle of the road.

> service providers are slow if not reluctant to turn it on.

this assertion is false, or disingenuous at best.  backbone service
providers are turning it on at great pain, much of that pain due to
lack of support from large router vendors.

> As much as you don't like them, some of the 42 hacks are required
> to establish that critical mass. 

nope.  they *detract* from it because it makes it appear as if one
*needs* all that kink to use ipv6.  in fact, one needs almost
nothing but real dual-stack deployment.  gussying it up with 3" of
pancake makeup does not make it more attractive.  you have been
operating on that theory for many years and it has not worked.

> Bottom line, the end user doesn't know or care about IP or any
> version issues.  They type names, or click on links, and magic
> happens. 

yep.  as i said <http://www.ietf.org/> usually works pretty well.

> It is our job to make that magic happen in more places, and as
> transparently as possible.

no.  it is the vendors' and operators' jobs.

randy

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:35:29 -0700

Randy Bush wrote:
> this assertion is false, or disingenuous at best.  
> backbone service providers are turning it on at great 
> pain, much of that pain due to lack of support from 
> large router vendors.

A few are working on lab efforts, and a very small number are offering
service. Even if the transit ISP's had full up support today, that doesn't
get the job done. The real issue is to convince the smaller ISP's that offer
service directly to the end user.

> you have been operating on that theory for many years and it has not
worked.

If one goes back to the origin of ngtrans, I was the one pushing hard to
make sure that dual stack was the priority, and that all of that was
specified before any solutions for corner cases. Even with dual stack as the
primary approach, many network managers are expressing reluctance because
they don't want to overlook the corner case that is important in their
network. Independent of that, app developers see no value in building code
for a network that they can't rely on working. It has only been recent work
with 6to4 & teredo creating the perception of an end-to-end (in this case it
only works at the end points) IPv6 network that has allowed apps to move
beyond what they can do with IPv4.

> > issues.  They type names, or click on links, and magic happens.
> 

So why shouldn't port 25 work?

> no.  it is the vendors' and operators' jobs.

Ok, it is our job to create the consistency so that vendors can create
products for operators to deploy and deliver services. In any case, just
having a deployment in a few backbone routers doesn't get the job done.

Tony

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:35:30 -0400 (EDT)

> service directly to the end user.
funny, i'm building a wireless version of that now, and ARIN seems to want
$2500 from me for an allocation.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:36:33 +0200