ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Issues with "prefer IPv6" [Re: Variable length internet addresses in TCP/IP: history]

2012-02-23 16:56:13
On 02/23/2012 14:48, Ned Freed wrote:
On 02/23/2012 13:51, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Old news perhaps, but an unavoidable consequence of this is that the
oft-repeated assertions that various systems have been "IPv6 ready for over 
10
years" don't involve a useful definition of the term "ready".

The OP specified "IPv4 only network." I suspect that if he had IPv6
connectivity his experience would have been quite different. I happily
use Windows XP on a dual-stack network, for example.

And systems running these old OS versions never under any circumstances move
from one network to another where connectivity conditions change. Riiight.

Brian already covered "unconditional prefer-IPv6 was a painful lesson
learned," and I'm not saying that those older systems did it right. What
I am saying is that for most values of "IPv6 Ready" which included
putting the system on an actual IPv6 network, they worked as advertised.


Doug

-- 

        It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.

        Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
        Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>