On Nov 24, 2008, at 00:22, Koos van den Hout wrote: > On Sun 2008-11-23 at 23:48, Todd Eddy wrote: > >> i like all the IPv6 services... although I guess this is still a >> rather >> niche group, but still :) > > The only way is to publish the availability of IPv6 services. Get more > people interested and get more out in the open that certain software > behaves badly when confronted with ipv6 requests to put the blame on > the > software. > >> I did get curious and indeed pool.ntp.org has no AAAA (IPv6) records. >> guess it would be a big undertaking since everyone would have to >> register their IPv6 addresses as well as IPv4. > > I think there are quite a number of potential IPv6 pool servers out > there. > I also think the 'IPv4' pool and 'IPv6' pool would be separate beasts > because IPv4/IPv6 network paths can differ greatly. > > But, as with any IPv6 implementation: what needs to be tested first > is to > see whether stuff breaks when the answer for pool.ntp.org could have > an > AAAA record. What happens when the answer for pool.ntp.org contains > one or > two AAAA records and my IPv6 connectivity is subtly broken? > > Koos van den Hout
(shrug) What happens when the answer for pool.ntp.org contains one or two A records and your IPv4 connectivity is subtly broken? Connectivity type and availability is the responsibility of the client, not the server. KeS _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
