www6 ?

[Doug Barton]

Petra Zeidler wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> www.ipv[46] is kind of common but extra typing. My lazyness wants a common
> usage, and it wants it shorter. What about using www6 (mail6, ...) and
> www4 (mail4, ...) for the non-dual-protocol names?

I've read this thread with interest, but I am still curious, what
problem are you trying to solve here? Is this something you want for
diagnostic purposes, for end user purposes, other? I think good
explanations have already been given for why something like www6 isn't
good for mass consumption, but you seem to be asking about
establishing a more common convention, so I'm confused. :)

I also thought it was worth elaborating on a peripheral point that was
made in this thread, that to the end user it makes no difference
whatsoever if the A and AAAA records for the same hostname reside on a
single (dual-stacked) machine, or two different machines, one machine
and one load balancer, etc. Within a given protocol (4 or 6) it would
of course make some difference for an SSL session whether the traffic
was handled by the same _machine_ or not, but unless the user has some
very strange TCP stack that randomly switches between protocols (or I
suppose, theoretically, if one protocol's traffic becomes unavailable
mid-session), but those are probably edge cases that aren't worth
putting a lot of effort into administering for.

So in any case, we're back to my original question, which is what
problem are you trying to solve?

Doug

-- 
    If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough