Just a point of clarification before the list moderator shuts down
this off-topic thread..
Ed's unstated assumption is that the condition being considered is
communication between two hosts that are both dual-stack. It is not
that he fails to understand that hosts that are now IPv4-only should
become dual-stack in order to communicate with the IPv6-only hosts
that are implied by the design of IPv6 (and the pending exhaustion of
spare IPv4 addresses).
From what we know of forwarding capacity in routers currently
deployed, dual-stack hosts may get better connectivity over IPv4 than
IPv6, or the other way around, depending on factors not worth adding
to the off-topic mix. Ed's "let the host choose" is the right answer
because in the future IPv6-only world hosts will need that capability,
and mostly do not have it now.
John
On 2010Mar30, at 3:40 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 11:25 -0700 3/30/10, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
All this has been covered at length before--dunno why you want to
rehash
it again.
Because it recently dawned on me that biasing in favor of v6 is the
root of the evil, not the run out of v4.
This isn't about what's better, v4 or v6. It's about the bias.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
