On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > This is another obviously bogus so-called "show-stopper" (compare to > > the request of waiting for root DNS servers to be dual-stack; another > > unnecessity). > > > These are religions/policitical reasons only, and I'd like to keep > > that part of the debate out of here. > > None of this is bogus. Running dual-stack has almost no advantages over > running IPv4-only,
I don't think this is correct. It gives you v6 for services which would only be available (or working correctly) using v6. One could imagine a large number of p2p or similar applications falling under that category. Remember, our goal is not to deploy IPv6 so that we could surf the web using v6... You've probably seent his already, but have a peek at: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html (this is down at the moment, but you can get it from google cache.) > it is imperative that we make it possible to run > IPv6-only, as this is the ultimate goal. Implementations that require > IPv4 for critical functions, even if it's only for a small set of such > functions, are useless in the long run. Depends on how long run that will be. If you expect a node to be deployed for 10 years, probably yes. If it gets replaced or upgraded in 3 years, there's little chance of IPv4 going away during that time. > And just because we update a > spec doesn't mean people get to have implementations that conform to > the new version any time soon, so we have to get it right from the > start if at all possible. Which is why we should not give people panic attacks about this, but look at it rationally and carefully. Get it right. > > Therefore I'm reluctant to change the tone of the text. > > If you prefer to duke it out at IESG last call that's fine with me. There will be no IETF last call as this is going for Informational, so if you really think the text is unjustified (given above), please state it now (and if possible, suggest alternative that would be more in line with the earlier context..) > >> BTW: how does a dual-stack host know whether to use v4 or v6 > >> resolvers? > > > Depending on the ordering of resolv.conf. > > Well, if a hand-crafted resolv.conf is authorative here, why are we > wasting our time on all these discovery and autoconfiguration issues?? Obviously, the problem is that resolv.conf is not hand-crafted but machine-edited :) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
