- #How to get directory of cygwin installation how to
- #How to get directory of cygwin installation download
#How to get directory of cygwin installation download
Download the Cygwin installer and run setup.exe.Perhaps we should just try it and look at our performance metrics from a 10.000ft view (page load time etc. How do you envision testing this with the VCL GeoIP service? I think we have the same kind of concerns for that one too, unless you have thought of a good idea to test both? I suppose we could create a more controlled (and convoluted) experiment where we asynchronously load resources over separate IPv4-only and IPv6-only hostnames with a unique token for both, to check for parity… but still, we wouldn't know which of the two is the right one. Perhaps a good approximation of a nameserver address sample, although it's hard to know for sure. That said, the Atlas dataset isn't especially great, as it contains a lot of probes located within datacenters and weird address spaces - not exactly an unbiased end-user sample. correctly locating the country but not the city). Last time I looked up a bunch of RIPE Atlas nodes, since RIPE lists both the IPv4/IPv6 address for each, and found quite a few differences, most of which were of the limited accuracy type (e.g.
#How to get directory of cygwin installation how to
I don't have any great ideas on how to compare the MaxMind data. In my experience, they're very rare nowadays and especially in this cross-country fashion (Google's 6to4 & Teredo statistics seem to concur). I'm honestly not worried all that much about tunnels anymore. This causes their DNS cache request over IPv6 to choose ulsfo for this east-coast user, whereas without authdns AAAA we would've picked the more-appropriate eqiad for them. Their ISP has significantly different routing to us over IPv6 than IPv4: perhaps they tunnel all their global IPv6 traffic through an exit point in Los Angeles and all their V6 is marked there in MaxMind, but the user is in NYC and v4 would route locally there.Their ISP doesn't support edns-client-subnet (only about 1/3 of our requests have it, so it's not yet common).Their ISP supports V6 to some degree, and will preferentially send lookups over IPv6 to us from their caches.They use the default DNS servers from their ISP (over V4 for client->cache). The real client is V4-only (perhaps because their DSL router/modem combo is V4 only because it's an older model).The scenario would be something like this: What's out evaluation plan here? Do we want to stall on proper IPv6 for in our VCL geoip lookup service first and do comparisons on that data? Or do some kind of direct survey of the two datasets? Or ask MaxMind how they think the relative quality fares?Įven if the V6 data is comparably-good for the V6 internet, we potentially face the additional issue that V6 DNS lookups may route differently than matching V4 user traffic. It just makes for less churn/noise in changes to our upstream NS sets with registrars (we have hundreds of domains to affect), and fewer concurrent experiments in this space. Chiefly, I think we should transition to our Anycasted IPv4 model first ( T98006 ), and then look at adding IPv6 addresses as anycast as well, after that. We're also working on other AuthDNS improvements concurrently though, and I think it makes sense to get through some of those other transitions first. It's still not a quick and easy step and not without risk, but it's within reasonable reach. I think at this point many of the blockers are behind us: IPv6 on the Internet is considerably more-mature now, an increasing percentage of client traffic is really IPv6, our GeoIP databases for IPv6 seem to be of reasonable quality (and we're also using them to route clients anyways, in cases where IPv4 recursors send us IPv6 edns-client-subnet), etc. We've never yet offered IPv6-native authdns, for various historical reasons of variable validity.
0 kommentar(er)
