This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[ipv6-wg] ripemtg-nat64 network at RIPE71: complain here ;)

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] ripemtg-nat64 network at RIPE71: complain here ;)
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] ripemtg-nat64 network at RIPE71: complain here ;)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Luuk Hendriks luuk.hendriks+ripev6wg at utwente.nl
Thu Nov 19 08:59:46 CET 2015

On Mon 16 Nov 2015, 12:55, Jen Linkova wrote:
> As you might have noticed there is a NAT64 SSID.
> This thread is for complains about that network.
> 
> Please use ripemtg-nat64 SSID. Please let us know if smth goes wrong.

I'm getting different (non, actually) DNS results on the nat64 network
for a CNAME wildcard record.

On the dual-stack network:

    $ dig AAAA randomsubdomain.mydomain.nl
    randomsubdomain.mydomain.nl. 3592 IN CNAME mydomain.nl.
    mydomain.nl. 18386 IN AAAA 2001:db8::1

On the nat64 network:

    $ dig AAAA randomsubdomain.mydomain.nl
    (no answer)

Same thing happens when querying the A record. Is this expected
behaviour in a NAT64 environment?

 luuk

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] ripemtg-nat64 network at RIPE71: complain here ;)
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] ripemtg-nat64 network at RIPE71: complain here ;)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]