Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: question: are the various IETF web sites IPv6 enabled? If not, why not?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

All work for me.

 

Some VPNs force all the traffic via the VPN and then the VPN is only IPv4 … that may explain it.

 

Also, you may be using DNS resolvers that aren’t providing the “correct” information.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 10/3/21 2:21, "ietf en nombre de Baird, John M CTR OSD HPCMP (USA)" <[e-mail] en nombre de john.m.baird10.ctr=[e-mail]> escribió:

 

Matt,

I have done some more testing, and have found that when I am connected to the open Internet correctly (not via the VPN used by my office), many of the IETF sites are indeed IPv6 enabled.

 

However, https://www.irtf.org/  reports “no address” and https://www.rfc-editor.org/ reports “access denied”, so there are still some unexpected results.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

John

From: Matt Mathis <mattmathis=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:08 PM
To: Baird, John M CTR OSD HPCMP (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: question: are the various IETF web sites IPv6 enabled? If not, why not?

 

All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. 

 

Another possible reason is that your CPE (modem, home router, etc) doesn't properly support IPv6, or isn't configured to do so.

 

It is taking a long time but we (US and europe) are approaching 50% IPv6.  See Caution-https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption < Caution-https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption > 

 

If you are on net 26/8, you may have other issues as well.

 

Thanks,

--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

We must not tolerate intolerance;

       however our response must be carefully measured: 

            too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of control;

            too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.

 

 

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:59 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > > wrote:

There may be several reasons for that.

Right now, it comes to my mind:
1) Your upstream provider IPv6 connectivity is not able to reach the IETF upstream provider with IPv6.
2) The latency of IPv6 is higher than the IPv4 one.

In those cases, happy eyeballs will prefer IPv4 so you will get IPvfoo extension showing IPv4 as preferred, but if you click, you can still see both the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses as provided by the DNS resolution.

Unfortunately, I've seen way too many ISPs that don't monitor IPv6 with the same degree of quality as IPv4, they rely on customers complains which don't happen because happy eyeballs ...

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 9/3/21 21:52, "ietf en nombre de Baird, John M CTR OSD HPCMP (USA)" <[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] >  en nombre de john.m.baird10.ctr=[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > > escribió:

    Brian, 
    Thanks for the quick response. You mention the Firefox "six or not" extension, and that is why I asked the question about IPv6 and IETF websites.

    When I browse the websites you cited, and also Caution-https://tools.ietf.org < Caution-https://tools.ietf.org > , IPvFoo lists several IPv4 addresses, but makes no mention of any IPv6 addresses.

    I can see the IPv6 addresses in DNS, but for some reason IPvFoo reports that the websites respond to web browsers only via IPv4.

    Any theories as to why this is so?

    John

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > > 
    Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 10:57 PM
    To: Baird, John M CTR OSD HPCMP (USA) <[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > >
    Cc: [e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > 
    Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: question: are the various IETF web sites IPv6 enabled? If not, why not?
    ----

    On 09-Mar-21 16:30, John Levine wrote:
    > In article <[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > > you write:
    >> -=-=-=-=-=-
    >>
    >> It is my understanding that they all are, and have been for some 
    >> time. I might suggest that you ping6 (or ping -6 depending on your OS) to see whether you get a response.
    > 
    > Yes, they all are.  The mail is, too.

    Caution-Caution-https://www.irtf.org/ < Caution-https://www.irtf.org/ >  too.
    Caution-Caution-https://www.rfc-editor.org/ < Caution-https://www.rfc-editor.org/ >  too.
    Caution-Caution-https://www.internetsociety.org/ < Caution-https://www.internetsociety.org/ >  too.

    The "six or not" FireFox extension tells me that the ISOC site invokes a couple of IPv4 services, so needs dual stack. The IETF site is clean in that regard.

       Brian




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
Caution-http://www.theipv6company.com < Caution-http://www.theipv6company.com > 
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.