[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: some real life data
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
The Teredo count on the IPv6 only address seems very low, considering that
Teredo is used by hosts behind NAT, while 6to4 is used by hosts not behind
NAT. Given that most hosts are behind NAT, it would be my suspicion that most
hosts are on Teredo - and that is indeed what my research shows.
Well, I thought so too. I have been trying to get teredo working on my XP
box behind a NAT, but I couldn't get it working, I don't know why yet. It
works well without NAT though.
That 98% of Teredo users run XP suggests to me that perhaps the v6only gif
had an A record on it accidentally.. Vista will prefer A over AAAA if it only
has Teredo connectivity. XP will prefer AAAA over A all the time. Considering
that Teredo is disabled by default in XP, the numbers you've got here seem
more like what I'd expect from an A+AAAA DNS name (though many XP Bittorrent
users now have Teredo turned on thanks to uTorrent).
For some strange reason I have approx 1% of v4 addresses in my v6only log.
v6only has no A record, it never has had, and currently I have no idea how
the v4 addresses come to fetch it.
Were you running your own relay?
Yes, we have a local relay. It might have some kind of problem, I'll look
into that as well.
Also of interest would be bits 33-64 of the Teredo address, see what hosts
are using what Teredo servers (ie. who is using the Microsoft ones? Who is
using ones provided by $linux_vendor?).
I'll look into that.
I've been crunching numbers with this sort of data for a while so if anyone
doing this sort of research, I'd be more than happy to help out any way I
can, drop me a line offlist - nward@braintrust.co.nz.
I'll definitely do that. I'm going to do some more work on the data during
the coming week when more has been collected.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se