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] v4 versus v6 -- who connects faster?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] v4 versus v6 -- who connects faster?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] v4 versus v6 -- who connects faster?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nico CARTRON
nicolas at ncartron.org
Mon May 23 14:40:44 CEST 2016
On 23 May 2016 at 14:40:00, Bajpai, Vaibhav (v.bajpai at jacobs-university.de) wrote: > On 23 May 2016, at 14:29, Jen Linkova <furry13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > furry at Wintermute:~>dig dragon.eecs.jacobs-university.de aaaa +short > 2001:638:709:3000::3a > furry at Wintermute:~>telnet -6 dragon.eecs.jacobs-university.de 5000 > Trying 2001:638:709:3000::3a... > telnet: connect to address 2001:638:709:3000::3a: Connection refused > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host > > That host does have IPv6 address in DNS (so no NAT64 is involved) but > nothing is listening on tcp/5000 on that IPv6 address. Fixed. Now it’s listening on both v4 and v6. And works perfectly now, thanks! -- Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160523/6971e867/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] v4 versus v6 -- who connects faster?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] v4 versus v6 -- who connects faster?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]