Subject: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:26:38 +0200 (EET)

Just FYI..

It's nice to see that IPv6 is working nicely but v4 is not :-)

(DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:37:10 -0800

> (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..)

windoze?

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:30:18 -0800 (PST)

I'm seeing lots of dhcp discover requests from win2k boxes that aren't 
resulting in a response...

I notice the lease time is only 300 seconds which works happily in my 
linux environment but may be exacerbating any other problem that may be 
hapening...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli	      Academic User Services   [email-masked]    
--    PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E      --
  In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last
  resort of the scoundrel.  With all due respect to an enlightened but
  inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
	   	            -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:21:08 -0800

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

>>>>> "Pekka" == Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> writes:
    Pekka> It's nice to see that IPv6 is working nicely but v4 is not :-)

  maybe, we should leave it that way!

    Pekka> (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..)

  Primary systems were up Saturday, and just prior to being duplicated onto
backup systems, the primaries 'blew up'. 
  At 13:30, things are mostly back to normal.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Mar 2003 17:13:35 -0500

I'm presuming by now everything is stable for you? You should be
seeing 40 minute leases right now.

Perry

Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> writes:

> _______________________________________________
> 56crew mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/56crew
> 

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		[email-masked]

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:18:41 -0800 (PST)

looks like major issues I was observing are in the past.

joelja

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Mar 2003 17:20:47 -0500

> looks like major issues I was observing are in the past.

We should have the backup servers up in the next hour which will
provide us with more redundancy. We'll also be extending the lease
time a bunch more so that we can survive outages better.

Perry

---

From: Tom Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:48:52 -0800

I have found that IPv6 seems to have a much longer round trip delay than
IPv4 for just about every site that I have tried.  For example, pinging
www.rfc-editor.org from here gives me this:

	IPv6: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 589.174/678.001/1109.953/117.776 ms
	IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms

Also, note that I cannot get an HTTP response from www.rfc-editor.org using
IPv6.  The connection is established fine, but the server does not respond
to requests.

This is really the first time that I have had a chance to use IPv6 outside
of a small test environment, and I am quite pleased that it works.  In fact,
it is easier than IPv4 due to address autoconfiguration (no DHCP client). 

:-)

-- 
"At Group L, Stoffel oversees six first-rate programmers, a managerial
challenge roughly comparable to herding cats."
        -- The Washington Post Magazine, 9 June, 1985

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:17:17 -0800

> 	IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms

See note to ietf list from yesterday that IPv6 routes all go to Europe
before going anywhere else. :(

> IPv6.  The connection is established fine, but the server does not respond

Works for me.  What browser are you using?  There were some problems
with the routing earlier today which appear to have been fixed.  Try
again and email me privately if you still have trouble?

--aaron

---

From: Tom Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:23:17 -0800

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:15:52PM -0800, Lars Eggert wrote:
> I can't comment on the routing issues (IPv6 connectivity esp. to the 
> 6bone seems to have been flaky), but the RFC editor IPv6 server has been 
>   up since last week.
> 
> You should see "you are using IPv6 from 
> 2001:490:f002:128:240:96ff:fe40:5bc9" on the bottom of the front page if 
> all went well.
> 
> Browser issue?

No, I verified with this:

  $ telnet www.rfc-editor.org 80
  Trying 3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3...
  Connected to www.rfc-editor.org.
  Escape character is '^]'.
  GET / HTTP/1.0

  [... wait a couple minutes ...]
  ^]
  telnet> q
  Connection closed.

My IPv6 address is 2001:460:410:8128::/64.

-- 
An American is a man with two arms and four wheels.
        -- A Chinese child

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:25:45 +0200 (EET)

> before going anywhere else. :(

Better so than going to Japan first as the last time ;-)

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:28:30 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Tom Marshall writes:

>>=20

Odd -- that exact sequence, using telnet, worked for me.  (I'm running 
NetBSD 1.6.1_RC2, if that matters.)

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

---

From: Tom Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:44:49 -0800

> NetBSD 1.6.1_RC2, if that matters.)

Perhaps it is the OS.  I'm using Linux 2.4.21-pre5.  Are there known issues
with the Linux 2.4 IPv6 implementation?

I also have 2.4.20 on this machine, perhaps I'll try that (there was an IPv6
update in the prerelease).

-- 
Football combines the two worst features of American life.
It is violence punctuated by committee meetings.
        -- George F. Will

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:40:56 +0100

> Better so than going to Japan first as the last time ;-)

Wow, I didn't know yet that postel.org & rfc-editor did IPv6.
Good thing :)

Albeit a bit on the slow side from europe:

jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute6 www.rfc-editor.org
traceroute to www.rfc-editor.org (3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3) from
3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
 1  gw-20.ams-02.nl.sixxs.net (3ffe:8114:1000::26)  19.811 ms  19.93 ms
20.14 ms
 2  Amsterdam.core.ipv6.intouch.net (2001:6e0::2)  19.367 ms  20.136 ms
20.228 ms
 3  3ffe:800::fffb:0:0:5 (3ffe:800::fffb:0:0:5)  181.746 ms *  181.91 ms
 4  3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3 (3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3)
182.807 ms  183.276 ms  182.283 ms

Then again the v4 path is imho even a bit worse:

jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute www.rfc-editor.org
traceroute to www.rfc-editor.org (128.9.160.27), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
 1  gw-64-92.sms-1.ams-tel.cistron.net (195.64.92.1)  18 ms  18 ms  18
ms
 2  ve10.rtr-1.ams-tel.cistron.net (62.216.31.1)  18 ms  19 ms  18 ms
 3  ge10-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.mfnx.net (193.148.15.122)  17 ms  17 ms  20 ms
 4  pos2-0.cr2.ams2.nl.mfnx.net (208.184.231.254)  19 ms  18 ms  18 ms
 5  pos3-0.cr1.ams2.nl.mfnx.net (64.125.31.169)  18 ms  18 ms  18 ms
 6  so-4-2-0.cr2.lhr3.uk.mfnx.net (208.184.231.45)  28 ms  29 ms  29 ms
 7  so-7-0-0.cr2.lga1.us.mfnx.net (64.125.31.182)  102 ms  101 ms  101
ms
 8  so-1-0-0.cr1.lga1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.0.233)  102 ms  102 ms  101
ms
 9  so-1-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net (208.184.233.61)  105 ms  106 ms  106
ms
10  so-3-0-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net (216.200.127.10)  105 ms  105 ms
so-0-0-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net (216.200.127.17)  105 ms
11  64.124.112.29.cogentco.com (64.124.112.29)  106 ms  106 ms  105 ms
12  p15-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.22)  107 ms  106 ms
106 ms
13  p14-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.161)  232 ms  321 ms
239 ms
14  p15-0.core01.jax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.137)  124 ms  123 ms
124 ms
15  p14-0.core01.mco01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.153)  128 ms  127 ms
127 ms
16  p14-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.142)  128 ms  129 ms
128 ms
17  p5-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.45)  144 ms  144 ms
143 ms
18  p14-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.6)  183 ms  181 ms
182 ms
19  p4-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.77)  182 ms  181 ms
180 ms
20  p6-0.core01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.202)  182 ms  182 ms
182 ms
21  38.118.132.98 (38.118.132.98)  182 ms  182 ms  182 ms
22  lngw2-isi-1-atm.ln.net (130.152.180.22)  183 ms  182 ms  182 ms
23  boreas.isi.edu (128.9.160.161)  183 ms *  182 ms

Looks like we are routed all over the US for that host ;)

But it's good to see that it works, IMHO all the important (ietf etc)
hosts
should already have been doing IPv6 for quite some time, but:

www.ietf.org AAAA record currently not present
ops.ietf.org AAAA record currently not present
ietf.org                MX      10 ietf-mx.ietf.org
ietf.org                MX      20 odin.ietf.org
ietf-mx.ietf.org AAAA record currently not present
odin.ietf.org AAAA record currently not present

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Tom Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:32 -0800

> update in the prerelease).

The problem seems to have resolved itself overnight.  I don't know if this
is related or not, but my IPv6 address is different this morning.

Thanks for all of the help.

-- 
Most people are too busy to have time for anything important.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:15:52 -0800

Browser issue?

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>           USC Information Sciences Institute

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:56:20 +0100

> 2001:490:f002:128:240:96ff:fe40:5bc9" on the bottom of the front page
if 

This page was last updated on 12Aug02.
You are using IPv6 from 3ffe:8114:2000:240:200:39ff:fe77:1f3f 

Thus IE6/Win2k works and I expect most others supporting IPv6 to do so
also ;)

As for latency:
IPv6:	10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9097ms
	rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.092/175.407/178.517/1.313 ms
IPv4:	10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9086ms
	rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 187.186/190.781/199.164/3.799 ms

Looks the same to me, IPv6 is even a fraction better.. hmm ;)

<lobby>
Shall I add that host, or one near it, to:
http://www.sixxs.net/misc/latency/ ?
Routing glitches can be seen quite well in that system.
Btw, is there a ISI Looking Glass or similar system available
so that it can be included into GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/) ?
Check the LG on the last url shows that ASN4554 does quite some
transit even between europe -> us and back to europe again...
Ofcourse everybody else with an AS who like to share
their view onto the world can take a look.
</lobby>

Greets,
 Jeroen