Philosophical question for IPv6 Day
gert at space.net
Thu Jun 9 07:17:24 CEST 2011
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:21:16PM -0400, Bill Owens 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.
- a fully dual-stacked website, functional for a v6-only client, located at
the main domain name
Which is what people have been doing years ago, and the Internet did not
come to an end... time to stop finding excuses for non-deployment.
> (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 first choice doesn't prove anything either, why would anyone bother
to type in ".ipv6." except for about two handful of random geeks around
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
More information about the ipv6-ops