"Barak A. Pearlmutter" <ba...@cs.nuim.ie> wrote:

> Please understand, I'm a big IPv6 advocate.

I wouldn't have guessed. I think it showed, didn't it?

> administration.  The host ftp.ie.debian.org is centrally hosted at
> heanet.ie, which is a centre for IPv6 deployment and expertise, a
> sixxs tunnel broker, which extends direct IPv6 service to universities
> here, etc.

Given the problem you point out with this particular host, it's quite
ironic, isn't it? What about getting them to fix it?

> and tickles it.  Whatever.  The thing is, there is much less pressure
> to keep the *global* IPv6 network tuned, and sometimes it takes a
> while for problems to be recognized and repaired.  This is not due to
> malice or deliberate neglect.  It is due to the fact that IPv4
> problems cause immediate serious blowback, while IPv6 problems do not.

Maybe it's because people complain on the BTS that IPv6 is preferred
over IPv4 by default and this causes issues with ftp.ie.debian.org
instead of telling the folks at Heanet about it?

> But for the moment, IPv4 problems get recognized and repaired rapidly,
> and IPv6 problems do not.  Why?  Chicken-and-egg.  No one relies on
> IPv6 because it is unreliable.  Why is it unreliable?  Because no one
> relies on it!

Or because people who should know better just shrug at it thinking
"it's just v6, v4 works, I'll got with that" instead of looking at the
issue and sending a quick mail to the people in charge?

> Sort of.  I've used http://ipv6.google.com/.  But Google has IPv6
> disabled at the DNS level for www.google.com, albeit perhaps only for
> some requests.  Watch:

Good, so you know about it.

I have no problems with the claim that only a minority of mainstream
sites are v6-enabled, but I do have a problem when this claim comes
with bogus examples.

> Why?  Because enabling it would break or degrade performance on many
> IPv6-enabled clients, which would blithely prefer IPv6 and get

According to their own study, "many IPv6-enabled clients" is actually
a minority.

> sporadic service.  If the clients defaulted to preferring IPv4, then
> this wouldn't be a problem, and Google could put IPv6 addresses into
> all DNS records, without risk.  That's what I'd like to see happen.
> It won't until clients default to "prefer IPv4."

If that was the case I think Google wouldn't be IPv6-enabled today,

>   $ ping6 -c2 ipv6.google.com
>   PING ipv6.google.com(fx-in-x68.google.com) 56 data bytes
>   --- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
>   2 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 999ms

What is that supposed to show? That your ISP is not peering with
Google like most ISPs do? (if they're peering with Google for v4
already, they really just have to ask their contact for v6 and they'll
get it)

>> I think you have no solid technical arguments against IPv6.
> I want to see IPv6 deployed.  I'm not making a technical argument
> against IPv6.

"it doesn't work" is a technical argument.

> But wait: you get much degraded access to ftp.ie.debian.org over IPv6
> than over IPv4.  So you *do* have an v6-induced issue: degraded
> service to that particular host.

No, I don't. You do, and again, it's not a v6-issue. It's a network
that's not maintained properly.

And even if the latency is high, the throughput is good, which means
file transfer works fine and it's the main concern for an FTP server.


 Julien BLACHE <jbla...@debian.org>  |  Debian, because code matters more 
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer        |       <http://www.debian.org>
 Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Reply via email to