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]/
[atlas] [ipv6-wg] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] [ipv6-wg] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Fri Mar 27 14:44:24 CET 2015
Hi, > On 26 Mar 2015, at 14:42, Enno Rey <erey at ernw.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:26:14PM +0100, Philip Homburg wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I forgot that RFC-6724 (Default Address Selection for Internet >> Protocol Version 6) now explicitly lists ULAs, so indeed they would >> not do any harm in trying to reach a dual-stack target. > > this would assume that > > a) the probes are supposed to follow RFC 6724. are they? > b) they actually _do_ this (follow RFC 6724) in practice. can this be confirmed? [keeping the wide variety of potential IPv6 node behavior in mind] If RFC 6434 (IPv6 Node Requirements) is being followed then RFC 6724 (as RFC 3484-bis) MUST be followed. But older implementations may only support RFC 3484. Further, some implementations appear to do other things (as I believe OS X does, with its preferences for IPv4 vs IPv6). Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] [ipv6-wg] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]