yum IPv6 repos

[Voll, Toivo]

I'm not sure if I entirely buy that... The factors you gave (and others) certainly are all true, but at the same time whenever we press vendors for IPv6 support, we get feedback to the tune that nobody else is asking for it, and amongst networking engineer peer meetings there are discussions about keeping up pressure for IPv6 support and keeping IPv6 support in requirement documents for new purchases in order to keep the momentum going.
It may be that I'm just seeing a self-selected group, but overall I think that universities are doing a pretty decent job with IPv6. I know we've embraced it, and have run a public mirror for several distributions with native IPv6 support for years now. (ftp.usf.edu)

Toivo Voll
Information Technology Communications
University of South Florida



On Dec 27, 2011, at 14:58 , Bill Owens wrote:
> 
> IPv6 uptake amongst US universities isn't great - they have lots of v4 space, are busy with other things and have had their IT budgets squeezed quite a bit in the last couple of years. Of course that doesn't stop some of us from trying to convince them that they still need to do v6, we just don't have much traction. 
> 
> Incidentally, here I am on a regional network that has v6 transit from Internet2 and NLR, trying to reach cajones.org:
> 
> [cookiemonster:~] owens% sudo tcptraceroute6 cajones.org
> traceroute to cajones.org (2001:610:148:dead::666) from 2620:f:1:1201:21b:63ff:fea4:4d92, port 80, from port 49823, 30 hops max, 60 bytes packets
> 1  c7609-32c.nysernet.org (2620:f:1:1201::1)  0.000 ms  0.000 ms  0.000 ms 
> 2  syr-7600-nnsyr.nysernet.net (2620:f:0:901::2)  0.000 ms  0.000 ms  0.000 ms 
> 3  nyc-7600-syr-7600.nysernet.net (2620:f:0:734::3)  10.000 ms  0.000 ms  10.000 ms 
> 4  nlr-nyc-7600.nysernet.net (2620:f:0:305::3)  0.000 ms  10.000 ms  0.000 ms 
> 5  ge1-0-0.1113.jnr02.asd001a.surf.net (2001:610:f16:6016::17)  90.000 ms  90.000 ms  80.000 ms 
> 6  ae2.500.jnr01.asd001a.surf.net (2001:610:e08:76::78)  90.000 ms  90.000 ms  100.000 ms 
> 7  terena-router.customer.surf.net (2001:610:f01:8168::170)  80.000 ms  90.000 ms  80.000 ms 
> 8  * * *         
> 9  * * *         
> 
> versus v4:
> [cookiemonster:~] owens% sudo tcptraceroute cajones.org
> Selected device en0, address 199.109.32.135, port 56079 for outgoing packets
> Tracing the path to cajones.org (192.87.30.17) on TCP port 80 (http), 30 hops max
> 1  c7609.nysernet.net (199.109.32.254)  0.657 ms  0.236 ms  0.212 ms
> 2  syr-7600-nnsyr.nysernet.net (199.109.9.1)  1.983 ms  0.254 ms  0.262 ms
> 3  nyc-7600-syr-7600.nysernet.net (199.109.7.78)  6.100 ms  6.079 ms  6.072 ms
> 4  nlr-nyc-7600.nysernet.net (199.109.4.158)  6.195 ms  6.157 ms  6.123 ms
> 5  ge1-0-0.1113.jnr02.asd001.surf.net (145.145.166.17)  94.152 ms  92.918 ms  94.137 ms
> 6  ae2.500.jnr01.asd001a.surf.net (145.145.80.78)  106.063 ms  93.239 ms  92.851 ms
> 7  terena-router.customer.surf.net (145.145.18.170)  93.964 ms  94.909 ms  97.566 ms
> 8  cajones.org (192.87.30.17) [open]  95.652 ms  94.183 ms  94.033 ms
> 
> There's something not right between us, on the v6 side. I don't know whether your script was actually testing connectivity or just pulling AAAA records, but if a test was involved it might be giving false negative answers. 
> 
> Bill.