In message <01OCC10B11TC00ZUIL(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>,
ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com w
rites:
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 m
ove
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.
Which brings us right back to my original point: This definition of "ready" i
s
operationally meaningless in many cases.
I contend that OS are IPv6 ready to exactly the same extent as they
are IPv4 ready. This isn't a IPv6 readiness issue. It is a
*application* multi-homing readiness issue. The applications do
not handle unreachable addresses, irrespective of their type, well.
The address selection rules just made this blinding obvious when
you are on a badly configured network.
No one expect a disconnected IPv4 network to work well when the
applications are getting unreachable addresses. Why do they expect
a IPv6 network to work well under those conditions?
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf