Philosophical question for IPv6 Day
gbonser at seven.com
Thu Jun 9 04:27:54 CEST 2011
> 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,
> - a v6-accessible skeleton at the main URL (www) that isn't
> 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
> proves anything - it doesn't drive backbone traffic, doesn't reveal
> path problems, etc.)
This is not as simple a question as it may seem. For example, many
things involved in the second alternative may be beyond the control of
the web site operator. For example, maybe there are links to external
ad farms or other content that are v4 only that the operator of the
landing site doesn't have any control over. Or maybe some portions are
in a CDN that is in a different data center or are run by a third party
that doesn't have v6.
You can make the web server itself completely IPv6 but have no control
over whether some of the content it serves is v4 or v6 if that content
comes from outside sources.
More information about the ipv6-ops