> Yes, let's deploy IPv6, but also make sure that nobody use it! If I understand what you're saying correctly, in essence, you feel sad inside when two IPv6-enabled hosts communicate using IPv4.
That is not a technical argument. For the next few years at least, when both are available, IPv4 will typically be faster and more reliable than IPv6. That is the world we are living in. Imagine that you're Joe Network Admin. Which of the following two scenarios would make you more likely to deploy IPv6? (a) If you deploy IPv6 your users will (mainly in the future) be able to access more hosts, and have better connectivity. And *nothing* will break or slow down, so you won't get any complaints, only (mainly in the future) kudos. (b) If you deploy IPv6 your users will (mainly in the future) be able to access more hosts, and have better connectivity. However connectivity to some hosts may be dramatically degraded or disrupted, so you may get a bunch of immediate complaints, and addressing these will in all likelihood be impossible without un-deploying IPv6. It is up to us to choose whether option (a) or (b) holds, because these are controlled by client preference of IPv4 or IPv6 when both are available. Option (a) is "clients prefer IPv4". Option (b) is "clients prefer IPv6". If we go with option (a), we might actually be able to transition to IPv6 pretty soon. With option (b), the Internet will stay a ratty NATed IPv4 monster for much longer, possibly forever, because admins would have to be IPv6-loving masochists to enable IPv6, and most network admins just want their users to be happy and don't care about helping to hasten widespread deployment of IPv6, especially if doing so would make their users unhappy. Since I want to see IPv6 enjoy widespread deployment, I think option (a) would be a wise decision. --Barak. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org