On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <CAP-guGWTcOAfeNKQSxsssoMXMY1SqS2ofaPrV26wW+GfVfpXyQ@mail.gmail.com>, William Herrin writes:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Randy <nanog@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@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004