[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