www6 ?

Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net
Fri Apr 20 10:25:29 CEST 2007

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Petra Zeidler wrote:

> Hi,
> www.ipv[46] is kind of common but extra typing. My lazyness wants a common
> usage, and it wants it shorter. What about using www6 (mail6, ...) and
> www4 (mail4, ...) for the non-dual-protocol names?

[I'll be using the www for the examples only]

Why does it make a difference for a non-dual-protocol machine if it
would be named www or www6? It's reachable by just one protocol no
matter of its name. So why not call it 'www' and stick with what we
had for ages now.

Just because I'd expect someone to come up with "but if I have two
machines - one for ipv4 and one for ipv6?". They both will still
be www - won't they? Will it matter if it's one or two machines?

Ok, I have to admit that things might become tricky, especially with
regard to identities and crypto, but that's part of the admin job
to get that right, with certificates and all that.

Ok, so what about broken resolver libraries out there? Does it matter?
Do you expect an end user to type in www4 instead of www if www does
not work?

Last but not least - if you have multiple machines you usually also
have multiple 'internal' names for them (let's say foo, bar, baz,
alice, bob and eve) and a 'service' name like www. You will always use
foo, bar, baz, .. for administrating them because you want to connect
to that machine. Do you care if it's v4, v6 or dual stack? Does it
matter to you? Can't you cope with a problem with one of the address
families? Why do you want foo4 and foo6 then?

Just my 0.002ct

Bjoern A. Zeeb				bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list