<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A little IPv6 experiment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/</link>
	<description>Thoughts and musings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:25:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-308848</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:06:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-308848</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Ejabberd_Configuration#Enable_IPv6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; will hopefully illustrate it clearly enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Ejabberd_Configuration#Enable_IPv6" rel="nofollow">This</a> will hopefully illustrate it clearly enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Siemon</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-285895</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Siemon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:18:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-285895</guid>
		<description>Thanks Jeremy. Do you have an example ejabberd config you could share?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Jeremy. Do you have an example ejabberd config you could share?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-285839</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:54:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-285839</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d just like to point out that if you&#039;re using Linux, telling ejabberd to listen on both IPv4 and IPv6 is pointless, because if you tell it to bind to ::, it includes ::ffff:0.0.0.0, which are the IPv4-compatible addresses. Basically it means it still works with IPv4.

My ejabberd runs set to inet6, not inet, and it still works on IPv4. For more information, see my &lt;a href=&quot;http://serverfault.com/questions/21657/semantics-of-and-0-0-0-0-in-dual-stack-oses/39561#39561&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;answer to a related question&lt;/a&gt; on Server Fault.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d just like to point out that if you&#8217;re using Linux, telling ejabberd to listen on both IPv4 and IPv6 is pointless, because if you tell it to bind to ::, it includes ::ffff:0.0.0.0, which are the IPv4-compatible addresses. Basically it means it still works with IPv4.</p>
<p>My ejabberd runs set to inet6, not inet, and it still works on IPv4. For more information, see my <a href="http://serverfault.com/questions/21657/semantics-of-and-0-0-0-0-in-dual-stack-oses/39561#39561" rel="nofollow">answer to a related question</a> on Server Fault.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Five Minutes &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Blogv6</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-285834</link>
		<dc:creator>Five Minutes &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Blogv6</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-285834</guid>
		<description>[...] mentioned a few times in the past, this blog is available over IPv6 as well as IPv4. Inspired by Dan Siemon, I thought I&#8217;d have a quick dig through my HTTP access logs and see how many requests come in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] mentioned a few times in the past, this blog is available over IPv6 as well as IPv4. Inspired by Dan Siemon, I thought I&#8217;d have a quick dig through my HTTP access logs and see how many requests come in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PB</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-279906</link>
		<dc:creator>PB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 07:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-279906</guid>
		<description>I would be interested to see how more reliable the service would have been if you&#039;d got native v6 for your server..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be interested to see how more reliable the service would have been if you&#8217;d got native v6 for your server..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Siemon</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-270701</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Siemon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-270701</guid>
		<description>Andy,

I&#039;ve been thinking of trying this again with a Sixxs tunnel instead of 6to4. Hopefully I get around to that :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andy,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been thinking of trying this again with a Sixxs tunnel instead of 6to4. Hopefully I get around to that :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Siemon</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-270700</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Siemon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-270700</guid>
		<description>Corsac,

I didn&#039;t capture IPv4 traffic so the best I can do is look at the Apache logs right now. There were roughly 180 unique hosts visit during the experiment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Corsac,</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t capture IPv4 traffic so the best I can do is look at the Apache logs right now. There were roughly 180 unique hosts visit during the experiment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Siemon</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-270698</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Siemon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-270698</guid>
		<description>TJ,

Your little Javascript/JPG experiment is a good idea. I may try that.

I don&#039;t have the numbers for during my experiment but in general there is a surprising amount of AAAA queries. I did some analysis of DNS traffic on a small ISP&#039;s main recursive server last year (http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2008/07/28/more-fun-with-dns-packet-captures/).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TJ,</p>
<p>Your little Javascript/JPG experiment is a good idea. I may try that.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t have the numbers for during my experiment but in general there is a surprising amount of AAAA queries. I did some analysis of DNS traffic on a small ISP&#8217;s main recursive server last year (<a href="http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2008/07/28/more-fun-with-dns-packet-captures/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2008/07/28/more-fun-with-dns-packet-captures/</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Corsac</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-270524</link>
		<dc:creator>Corsac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-270524</guid>
		<description>5 ipv6 out of how many ips in total?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>5 ipv6 out of how many ips in total?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ</title>
		<link>http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2009/03/16/a-little-ipv6-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-270513</link>
		<dc:creator>TJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coverfire.com/?p=505#comment-270513</guid>
		<description>If you simply add a AAAA record (in addition to the A record) many hosts that are using an automatic tunnel will actually prefer the &quot;A&quot; response.  

IMHO, a more interesting experiment is to use a little javascript &amp; .jpg magic to force visitors to transparently (to them) load an IPv4-only pic, an IPv6-only pic and an IPv4+IPv6 pic ... get a better idea of who is IPv6 capable vs. who is using IPv6 to actually get to you.

Another interesting thing would be to monitor the DNS requests coming in, watch how many visitors request AAAA&#039;s ...


/TJ
PS - while my employer&#039;s site is certainly not a &quot;big volume&quot; site, we have been dual-stacked for almost 3 years now ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you simply add a AAAA record (in addition to the A record) many hosts that are using an automatic tunnel will actually prefer the &#8220;A&#8221; response.  </p>
<p>IMHO, a more interesting experiment is to use a little javascript &amp; .jpg magic to force visitors to transparently (to them) load an IPv4-only pic, an IPv6-only pic and an IPv4+IPv6 pic &#8230; get a better idea of who is IPv6 capable vs. who is using IPv6 to actually get to you.</p>
<p>Another interesting thing would be to monitor the DNS requests coming in, watch how many visitors request AAAA&#8217;s &#8230;</p>
<p>/TJ<br />
PS &#8211; while my employer&#8217;s site is certainly not a &#8220;big volume&#8221; site, we have been dual-stacked for almost 3 years now &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

