Say "Thank you" to Bill...

[Remi Denis-Courmont]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:49:24 +0300, Max Tulyev <maxtul at netassist.kiev.ua> wrote:
>> PS: Macintoys come IPv6 enabled already for quite some time too, they
>> though have IPv6 disabled in Safari to avoid the above issue...
>> Don't blame "Bill", *THANK* "Bill" for M$ having enabled IPv6. If they
>> didn't then IPv6 would never ever be used anywhere, or do you really
>> think that those few Linux boxes are going to matter? :)
> 
> I understand well Bill's and TheBigBrother's(tm) main idea: to mak
> traffic flow through their servers at least part, at least for a while.

What?!?

> But - they really did a bad thing for V6: they made V6 enabled hosting
> unusable in production :(

How so?

> Compare it to Linux/Mac: Have V6 way - use it. V6 is not setuped - fall
> back to V4.

Windows has had proper support for source address selection (RFC3484) much earlier than Linux (around kernel 2.6.12 or so and libc 2.4). I think MacOSX still does not have it at all.

As far as I am concerned, any RFC3484 systems have a better (more conservative) approach to not using v6 than the others. I am not a big fan of Windows, but I would not blame it for trying to use v6 at all cost, which it does not. Windows does not use v6 if it's not available. And if it has 6to4 and/or Teredo only, it will favor v4 (unless the remote peer does not provide v4 at all).

You should rather blame broken third-party applications that are overriding RFC3484 and force IPv6 all the time.

> No tunnels. No security holes (how many people even know
> they have unfiltered V6 connectivity?!).

Blame lame firewall filters. If you let random IP protocols and UDP ports numbers out, you should expect this kind of things anyway.

--
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/