 NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
 ·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to wayjac
Re: [Modem] Problem with westell 6100 An unused (and unusable) IPv6 tunnel of any kind can significantly slow down access to IPv4 resources.
If you are with an ISP that does not supply either native dual stack IPv4/IPv6, or provide their own IPv6 tunnel for their customers (like AT&T), then unless you have explicitly setup a third party IPv6 tunnel, it is always a good idea to either disable or uninstall the unused IPv6 protocol stacks that both Windows and most Linux distro's install automatically.
The results below from a ICSI Netalyzer test I just ran show how even a functioning IPv6 tunnel is not nearly as efficient as native IPv4 traffic. Imagine if you were waiting for timeouts from a misconfigured (or non-existant) tunnel.
IPv6 Tests –
DNS support for IPv6 (?): OK
Your system can successfully look up IPv6 addresses. Your DNS resolver is not on Google's IPv6 "whitelist", which means that Google does not enable IPv6 access to their services for you.
IPv4, IPv6, and your web browser (?): IPv6 connectivity problem
Your browser successfully fetched a test image from our IPv6 server. Unfortunately, this is substantially slower than IPv4: it took 0.8 seconds longer to fetch the image over IPv6 compared to IPv4. Your browser prefers IPv4 over IPv6.
IPv6 connectivity (?): OK
Your host was able to contact our IPv6 test server successfully. The requests originated from 2002:4b92:82a::4b92:82a. This IP address suggests you are using 6to4 for IPv6 connectivity.
It takes 329 ms for your computer to fetch a response from our test server using IPv6, while it takes 90 ms for the same host to fetch a response using IPv4 from the same server.
IPv6 TCP connectivity (?): OK
Direct TCP access to remote FTP servers (port 21) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SSH servers (port 22) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SMTP servers (port 25) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote POP3 servers (port 110) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote RPC servers (port 135) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote NetBIOS servers (port 139) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote IMAP servers (port 143) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SNMP servers (port 161) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote HTTPS servers (port 443) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SMB servers (port 445) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SMTP/SSL servers (port 465) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote secure IMAP servers (port 585) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote authenticated SMTP servers (port 587) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote IMAP/SSL servers (port 993) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote POP/SSL servers (port 995) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote OpenVPN servers (port 1194) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote PPTP Control servers (port 1723) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SIP servers (port 5060) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote BitTorrent servers (port 6881) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote TOR servers (port 9001) is allowed.
IPv6 Traceroute (?): OK
It takes 12 network hops for IPv6 traffic to pass from our IPv6 server to your system, as shown below. For each hop, the time it takes to traverse it is shown in parentheses.
2607:f740:b::1 (0 ms)
2607:f108:300::6 (185 ms)
2001:1900:4:2::29d (0 ms)
vl-60.car2.Washington1.Level3.net (7 ms)
vl-4061.car1.NewYork2.Level3.net (6 ms)
vl-4041.car1.NewYork1.Level3.net (7 ms)
vl-4086.edge3.London1.Level3.net (76 ms)
vl-4081.edge4.London1.Level3.net (76 ms)
vl-4060.edge4.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (84 ms)
vl-4085.sar1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (84 ms)
tenge-1-3.cr2.NBG1.content-core.net (97 ms)
Tenge-1-1-58.cr2.FRA3.content-core.net (99 ms)
It takes 11 network hops for traffic to pass from the same server to your system over IPv4, as shown below. For each hop, the time it takes to traverse it is shown in parentheses.
gateway-1-iad2.vr.org (203 ms)
cr1.iad1.inforelay.net (112 ms)
216.151.186.221 (0 ms)
ve3623.r1.dc.hwng.net (0 ms)
be-101-pe04.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (1 ms)
be-11-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (1 ms)
pos-4-13-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (16 ms)
so-7-1-0-0-ar01.goodslettvll.tn.nash.comcast.net (23 ms)
xe-3-1-0-0-sur02.murfreesboro.tn.nash.comcast.net (25 ms)
te-17-10-cdn13.murfreesboro.tn.nash.comcast.net (45 ms)
73.254.128.17 (32 ms)
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower |
|
 graysonfPremium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Summary of Noteworthy Events –
Major Abnormalities
We received unexpected and possibly dangerous results when looking up important names.
DNS lookups of popular domains (?): Warning
One popular name has a significant anomaly. The ownership suggested by the reverse name lookup does not match our understanding of the original name. This could be caused by an error somewhere in the domain information, deliberate blocking or redirection of a site using DNS, or it could be that your ISP's DNS Server is acting as a DNS "Man-in-the-Middle".
We attempted to download HTTP content from the IP addresses that your ISP's DNS server returned to you for these names. Where the download succeeded, you can click on the IP address in the table below to download a compressed file containing an HTTP session transcript.
Note! The session content is potentially harmful to your computer when viewed in a browser, so use caution when examining it.
Name IP Address Reverse Name/SOA
www.microsoft.com 207.46.19.254 rms-tk5-ext.0[...]office365.com
LOL. |
|
NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| said by graysonf:Summary of Noteworthy Events –
Major Abnormalities
We received unexpected and possibly dangerous results when looking up important names.
DNS lookups of popular domains (?): Warning
One popular name has a significant anomaly. The ownership suggested by the reverse name lookup does not match our understanding of the original name. This could be caused by an error somewhere in the domain information, deliberate blocking or redirection of a site using DNS, or it could be that your ISP's DNS Server is acting as a DNS "Man-in-the-Middle".
We attempted to download HTTP content from the IP addresses that your ISP's DNS server returned to you for these names. Where the download succeeded, you can click on the IP address in the table below to download a compressed file containing an HTTP session transcript.
Note! The session content is potentially harmful to your computer when viewed in a browser, so use caution when examining it.
Name IP Address Reverse Name/SOA
www.microsoft.com 207.46.19.254 rms-tk5-ext.0[...]office365.com
LOL.
Yeah, the folks at ICSI do sometimes have a "Danger, Will Robinson" streak in their diagnostic reports. 
Of course, that is actually a Microsoft IP address which suggests some sort of dynamic load balancing by Microsoft (and/or Akamai) in the DNS reply (and probably nobody bothered to change the rDNS/PTR records when the IP address was changed).
NetRange: 207.46.0.0 - 207.46.255.255
CIDR: 207.46.0.0/16
OriginAS:
NetName: MICROSOFT-GLOBAL-NET
NetHandle: NET-207-46-0-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
RegDate: 1997-03-31
Updated: 2004-12-09
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-46-0-0-1
OrgName: Microsoft Corp
OrgId: MSFT
Address: One Microsoft Way
City: Redmond
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98052
Country: US
RegDate: 1998-07-10
Updated: 2011-04-26
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/MSFT
They will post similar dire warnings if you use DNS to redirect such domain names as googleadservices.com or googlesyndication.com to a more benign (null) location. But overall, their actual network analysis test is a good network connectivity diagnostic tool.
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower |
|
|
|
graysonfPremium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Other than that, about the worst thing they said about my connection was low bandwidth and high latency. Of course, that is actually an AT&T feature set 
My HE IPv6 gateway is in Miami so it performs reasonably well considering. But no complaints, a static routed /64 and another /48 if I want it for free!
And yes, if you run dual stack without an IP on the six side, performance of your four side will absolutely suck. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | reply to NetFixer
I'd put my money on it being MicroSlop's daily screwing up of their network. You know what I'm talking about... when EVERY request results in a redirect to a bing search. Even bing searches. |
|
