Philosophical question for IPv6 Day

Gert Doering gert at
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.)
> 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.

3rd option:

- 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 
the world?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
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 mailing list