From the dualstack-is-fun department...

[Cameron Byrne]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ lots of stuff snip, Touche re. IE6. It's actually ~5% now but still
> noticeable. Thanks for the vid - loved to see it again. ]
>

"IE6 usage, meanwhile, continues to decline. It fell to 11.33% in
February, down from 11.43% in January."

This ran in network world today,
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/030111-ie-firefox.html?hpg1=bn

Different measurements result in different results, but i cited a source.

>> me of recent v6ops flame war where the co-creator of 6to4 refused to
>> admit that 6to4 was ever an issue and could possibly in any way harm
>> v6 deployment.
>
> I am sorry if I made myself sound like in a flame war - that was not
> the intent at all.
>

No, this has not been a flame war.  I am just very scared about
creating another well intentioned patch that makes things worse like
6to4.  And, i don't believe any RFC specified helpdesk interactions
will make much of a differences in the real world.

>>
>> I am not saying HE is bad in any way,
>> i am just saying we need to go real slow and be VERY grounded in reality.
>> The only way i can think to do that is to add MUST NOT be on by default.
>> HE is a good work-around *NOT A FIX* for broken connections.... and masking issues
>> is only ok for a short time if we are really going to follow-up and
>> fix it.  That said, lets wait for symptoms before applying the
>> tourniquet, and yes, HE is a tourniquet... but hopefully only cutting
>> off circulation on a per destination basis for a short amount of time.
>
> What do you think about this:
>
>      Some sites may wish to be informed when the the hosts adjust
> their "P" value,
>      in order to troubleshoot the underlying cause. To help these sites,
>      a strawman proposal is to send a syslog message or other notification
>      to an address that may be configured
>      by a site administrator in a centralized fashion.
>      (The exact method TBD - DHCP option, domain name, etc.)
>      This syslog message should be sent only first N times that the host
>      expects to prefer IPv6 but has to use IPv4. I.e. the first N
> times it decreases
>      the value of P. The value of N TBD.
>

I honestly don't believe there is anything that can be said aside from
default off.  That's just my opinion.

>
> This should make HE into something that can *lower* the complexity of
> the troubleshooting ?
>
> If you have the HE at the end user = you configure them to send a
> notification to your helpdesk proactively;
>

I don't work at a helpdesk, but this does not seem realistic IMHO.

> If you have it at a helpdesk - you convert this into a big flashing
> "That site example.com you just tested, does not work over IPv6.
> We made it work because we are so kind to quickly fallback - but IE6
> will be broken...."
>
> cheers,
> andrew
>
>> Cameron
>>
>