Re: Issues with "prefer IPv6" [Re: Variable length internet addresses in TCP/IP: history]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Yes, the issues with an unconditional "prefer IPv6" approach
> have been noted, and operating systems of the vintages you
> mention certainly deserved criticism. In fact this has been a
> major focus of IPv6 operational discussions, and lies behind
> things like the DNS whitelisting method, the happy-eyeballs
> work, and my own RFC 6343.

> Old news; unfortunately it means you need new o/s versions.
> Disabling 6to4 and Teredo unless they are known to be working
> well is a good start, however.

Old news perhaps, but an unavoidable consequence of this is that the
oft-repeated assertions that various systems have been "IPv6 ready for over 10
years" don't involve a useful definition of the term "ready".

				Ned


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]