Am 12.03.13 14:11, schrieb Ask Bjørn Hansen:
On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:59, Brian Rak <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd have to agree as well. Enabling IPv6 on all the pool hostnames
is probably a safe thing to do at this point.
In most countries the service will be much worse; there are just not
enough IPv6 servers.
I think you are over-estimating this problem. In countries with few or
no IPv6 servers in the pool, few or no pool users will have IPv6
connectivity, either. Users with only IPv4 connectivity won't be
affected by the proposed change.
That said, I agree that there is little point in hurting the pool
quality just to promote IPv6 - and there is a real chance that someone
might be negatively affected.
OTTH, there is also a less-real chance that someone is negatively
affected by the status quo - if they have an IPv6-only node, they
would only get one time server configured, even though three different
servers would be readily available.
What I can do is roll it out mode widely for countries with more than
X IPv6 servers (where X is something like the higher of 30 or 1/6th
of the number of IPv4 servers).
That sounds like a good strategy, and should also make the IPv6
proponents happy.
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
pool mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
