Yesterday's Windows update causes IPv4 to be default
p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Wed Nov 21 20:18:56 CET 2012
On 11/21/2012 06:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> I'm responding pseudo-randomly to Phil here but Nick and Lorenzo are
> making the same mistake. :)
You've read too much into my response, I fear. In the context of your
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.
...I was merely pointing out that, thus far, the most significant IPv6
problems *we* have experienced have been *exactly* intermittent ones at
the content end.
I don't assert that this is true universally, that our experience will
remain so, or that any robustness solutions should be based on this
anecdote. Merely that "almost certainly not at the content end" is not
supported by *my* experience.
> bumps along the way. Assuming that because the problem is mostly fixed
> at this point in time, for us (who do not represent the average Internet
> user), and therefore we don't have to worry about IPv6 vs. IPv4
> reliability problems anymore, is pure folly.
You're correct. Fortunately that is not an assumption I have made ;o)
The various transport robustness efforts are a good thing. We'll get to
see which idea works best, and in 20 years, hopefully it'll be a solved
problem, with exactly the body of evidence to support the conclusion
that we *don't* have now.
It's just a damn shame someone didn't put a session layer above the BSD
socket API and standardise *that*, back when the problems was small!
More information about the ipv6-ops