Question about "proper" way to run v6/v4 website

[Tim Chown]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:38:50PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:05:41PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > frankly, it ain't all that useful. Clever, sure. But right now, 
> > running a v6-capable operating system is much more likely to cause you 
> > problems than benefit, and running v6-enabled services is guaranteed 
> > to cause you more problems than benefit, 
> 
> Well, the claim "more problems than benefit" is obviously true - as there
> is no direct benefit to be an IPv6 early adoptor.
> 
> I challenge the actual *amount* of problems experienced, though.  Our
> primary web server (www.space.net) is running dual-stack since April 2002,
> and besides issues local to the server (the config management stuff we
> used had problems with IPv6) I can't remember having seen any issues.
> 
> We have been running lots of our internal servers (Intranet stuff) with
> IPv6 in the last years, and all our office network infrastructure - and
> while it has given some issues (Apache ACLs as the primary candidate), 
> the overall amount of trouble was minimal.

I agree with Gert; the amount of problems isn't that high.   We've also
been running DNS, MX's, web presence etc dual-stack for some time (years)
and the volume of problem incidents is currently small.   The process of
eating our own dogfood as a site that's been involved in various projects
(6NET in particular) is, we feel, very beneficial for us and to help
look at issues that may arise.  

That of course may change as users/networks beyond the early experimentors
start using IPv6 (intentionally or otherwise).

-- 
Tim