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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Question about how I handle web sites in my IPv6 survey
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Question about how I handle web sites in my IPv6 survey
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Question about how I handle web sites in my IPv6 survey
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael Richardson
mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Tue Dec 26 23:45:33 CET 2023
Mark Prior via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > The cases where it gets to a 200 are fine as that's "success" but there are > some failure modes that I can't really make my mind up on so having some > feedback would be potentially useful. What percentage are these failures? Maybe it's just noise. > In all these cases I see a site with A and AAAA records so I connect on port > 80 of the IPv6 address(es). What if they have only AAAA? > 1. If the connection fails should I just report that or should I do anything > more? For example see if the site responds via IPv4. The site could just be down/broken. So checking with v4 kinda makes sense. > 2. If the connection succeeds (so I assume there should be a working IPv6 > based web server) but after querying it with a HTTP/1.1 message sees the site > resets the connection (or fails in some other manner). That sounds like it's behind a v6-capable/enthusiastic CDN, and the origin web site is broken. > 3. The connection succeeds as does the query and I get a 301 redirect to a > location that fails to connect (typically it's the https port but could be > another domain name). Again is this enough or should it do something > else? I think that this is the biggest question. I'd mark it as down for now. > Finally in some cases I'll get a HTTP status code such as 403, 429 or 503 > rather than 200 and these are reported with a background of either light > green or light red depending on whether it occurred on an IPv6 or IPv4 > connection. Should these be blue rather than a different green/red? Keep them green/red. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 515 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20231226/93535031/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Question about how I handle web sites in my IPv6 survey
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Question about how I handle web sites in my IPv6 survey
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]