On 29 April 2014 08:57, Simon Perreault <si...@per.reau.lt> wrote: > Le 2014-04-28 18:43, Kenneth Westerback a écrit : >> Why is the burden on everyone to provide 'valid' objections? > > I know that what I proposed cannot go in at the moment. It's my end > goal. Now what I want is to have a clear picture of what the issues are, > and whether there's anything I can do to help fix them. I'm not putting > the burden on anyone except myself. >
I repeat the question - what is the point of your goal to return IPv6 addresses first? Why change? Even in a world where IPv6 was 99.99% of the traffic, what advantages would accrue to having IPv6 addresses returned first? I'm not hostile or opposed, I just think this appears to be a complete waste of your time. >> Given the miniscule IPv6 usage out there, why should IPv6 come first? > > I don't see how "usage" is relevant. If IPv6 provided 1000% performance > improvement with no downsides, we would want to use it even if global > usage was low. > Why would having the IPv6 addresses come first in the returned list be required to 'use' them? Please explain. .... Ken > Thanks, > Simon
