Penned by Kenneth Westerback on 20140429 8:44.16, we have: | 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.
Many commonly used applications that have the ability to connect to both IPv4 and IPv6 will connect to the first address. This is a mere convenience. Everybody knows I use IPv6 a lot and I am fine with the resolv.conf 'family inet4 inet6' remaining as it is until a future time if/when it makes sense to change it. Doing so prematurely does not help. Thanks, -- Todd T. Fries . http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt . @unix2mars . github:toddfries
