Mark Prior via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > The cases where it gets to a 200 are fine as that's "success" but there are > some failure modes that I can't really make my mind up on so having some > feedback would be potentially useful. What percentage are these failures? Maybe it's just noise. > In all these cases I see a site with A and AAAA records so I connect on port > 80 of the IPv6 address(es). What if they have only AAAA? > 1. If the connection fails should I just report that or should I do anything > more? For example see if the site responds via IPv4. The site could just be down/broken. So checking with v4 kinda makes sense. > 2. If the connection succeeds (so I assume there should be a working IPv6 > based web server) but after querying it with a HTTP/1.1 message sees the site > resets the connection (or fails in some other manner). That sounds like it's behind a v6-capable/enthusiastic CDN, and the origin web site is broken. > 3. The connection succeeds as does the query and I get a 301 redirect to a > location that fails to connect (typically it's the https port but could be > another domain name). Again is this enough or should it do something > else? I think that this is the biggest question. I'd mark it as down for now. > Finally in some cases I'll get a HTTP status code such as 403, 429 or 503 > rather than 200 and these are reported with a background of either light > green or light red depending on whether it occurred on an IPv6 or IPv4 > connection. Should these be blue rather than a different green/red? Keep them green/red. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide