www6 ?

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Apr 23 23:30:12 CEST 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've read this thread with interest, but I am still curious, what
problem are you trying to solve here? Is this something you want for
diagnostic purposes, for end user purposes, other? I think good
explanations have already been given for why something like www6 isn't
good for mass consumption, but you seem to be asking about
establishing a more common convention, so I'm confused. :)

I also thought it was worth elaborating on a peripheral point that was
made in this thread, that to the end user it makes no difference
whatsoever if the A and AAAA records for the same hostname reside on a
single (dual-stacked) machine, or two different machines, one machine
and one load balancer, etc. Within a given protocol (4 or 6) it would
of course make some difference for an SSL session whether the traffic
was handled by the same _machine_ or not, but unless the user has some
very strange TCP stack that randomly switches between protocols (or I
suppose, theoretically, if one protocol's traffic becomes unavailable
mid-session), but those are probably edge cases that aren't worth
putting a lot of effort into administering for.

So in any case, we're back to my original question, which is what
problem are you trying to solve?


    If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list