Philosophical question for IPv6 Day
ek at google.com
Thu Jun 9 02:24:25 CEST 2011
On 8 June 2011 17:21, Bill Owens <owens at nysernet.org> wrote:
> Which is better, at this stage of IPv6 deployment and transition:
> - a fully dual-stacked website, functional for a v6-only client without resorting to v4, and located at a separate URL (www.ipv6, etc.)
> - a v6-accessible skeleton at the main URL (www) that isn't functional by itself, and forces the client to use v4 to fetch a substantial amount of the content.
> (I vote for the first choice, since I don't think the second one really proves anything - it doesn't drive backbone traffic, doesn't reveal path problems, etc.)
The second one. It might seem cheesey, but it can be steadily
refactored and improved for more IPv6 piece by piece and gains real
IPv6 users. Nobody uses alternate domainnames.
More information about the ipv6-ops