"Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications"....

Sat Dec 1 02:46:42 UTC 2012

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> In message <CAP-guGWTcOAfeNKQSxsssoMXMY1SqS2ofaPrV26wW+GfVfpXyQ at mail.gmail.com>,
>  William Herrin writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Randy <nanog at afxr.net> wrote:
>> > It wasn't difficult to update to ipv6, only some reading was needed, don't
>> > know what the fuss is =D
>>
>> Go test it against a dual stack remote host with the Tunnel's
>> addresses still configured on your hosts but packet filtering set to
>> silently drop packets on the IPv6 tunnel. Then work through the
>> implications of what you observe.
>
> Go test your IPv4 code against a half broken multi-homed server.
> There is no difference.

Which is why the common and successful strategy in engineering a
reliable IPv4 system is to use a single IP address for each service
and let BGP handle multihoming. Using a single IP address is no longer
possible for dual-stacked hosts, so your dual stacked client code has
to handle it instead.

>  With dual stack [...] no more ignoring the issue.

Exactly.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004