On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > So, how about we go the other way. We want IPv6 to be taken more seriously. > What about if we change the algorithm the other way over time: give IPv6 more > and more of a head start. That way IPv6 stability and performance become more > important over time, without causing brokenness. Something like: > > HE head start = 300 + (months after 2017-01-01) * 30 > > That would provide some incentive to make sure that IPv6 is properly deployed > and managed.
Well, if you keep increasing the timeout you'll eventually make the failover time worse than it would have been w/o HE. Basically the timeout should be long enough to keep Ipv6 preferred in most of 'non-broken' cases but short enough so if IPv6 is broken, users do not notice the failover. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
