Just in case someone here wants to take sides, have a look at this thread on
the IPv6 discussion list at Apple:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/ipv6-dev/2010/Jun/msg00000.html
(the thread actually goes back earlier than that, but I can't be bothered going
looking for it because I can't stand that awful PiperMail interface)
Summary: it is a problem for some people, notably content providers, that
connectivity losses result from a preference to use (advertised) v6 routes.
Mac OS X, in particular, has this habit of treating even the commonplace 6to4
routes, which of course fail occasionally for a number of reasons, just as
native IPv6, and preferring them. It has no address selection table, so it
will flunk even when IPv4 would have worked fine, i.e., will not treat common
v4-NAT environment as global scope.
My take: it's not their fault. Transition mechanisms must improve, because
they're needed even into the IPv4 twilight. However, it's been noted before
that an API for selection of the protocol based on application requirements is
a solution to this particular paradox, and I agree with that.
Cheers,
Sabahattin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf