Philosophical question for IPv6 Day

[Jared Mauch]

On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, Erik Kline wrote:

> 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.)
>> 
>> or
>> 
>>  - 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.
>> 
>> Bill.
>> 
>> (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.

I would say +1 on this as well.

I've had my systems and our corporate sites have been dual-stacked for years but we're not doing mass-consumer interaction (Eg: revenue from selling ad space, where views and click-through matter).

- Jared