Yesterday's Windows update causes IPv4 to be default

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:

> Oh c'mon, that's just silly. The intermittent problems are almost
> certainly not the fault of the content end of the system, they are almost
> certainly on the user end, or somewhere in between.
>

Correct. In case it wasn't clear, what I meant was:

   - If you're an ISP, don't provision the user with an IPv6 address and
   default route if you're not prepared to give them an appropriate level of
   service.
   - Similarly, if you're a website operator, don't give a website an AAAA
   record if you're not prepared to make it sufficiently reliable.

That is - if you're deploying IPv6, do it properly. Don't deploy unreliable
IPv6 "because it's the responsibility of the hosts to avoid stuff that
doesn't work".

We have to be able to deal rationally with the issue of the IPv4 network
> having a high degree of reliability and familiarity vs. the IPv6 network
> which by comparison has neither. Otherwise we've removed the motivation
> from both sides of the network to deploy it.
>

I disagree. If we do this, we will be permanently increasing the complexity
of hosts just so we can work around a temporary problem (immature IPv6
deployments and implementations).

Happy eyeballs is a useful crutch to get us over the initial bump of IPv6
transition, but it's very much a double-edged sword. Relying on it has
long-term implementations for the complexity of the Internet architecture,
and that is IMO the wrong tradeoff..
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20121121/01a68096/attachment.htm>