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

[Matt Mathis <[e-mail]>]

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
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]> 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] en nombre de john.m.baird10.ctr=
> [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 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]>
>     Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 10:57 PM
>     To: Baird, John M CTR OSD HPCMP (USA) <[e-mail]>
>     Cc: [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]> 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-https://www.irtf.org/ too.
>     Caution-https://www.rfc-editor.org/ too.
>     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 ?
> 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.
>
>
>
>