On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 15-sep-2007, at 21:25, Barrett Lyon wrote:
The other thought that occurred to me, does FF/Safari/IE have any ability to default back to v4 if v6 is not working or behaving badly? This could be a helpful transition feature but may be more trouble than it's worth.
Browsers are pretty good at falling back on a different address in general / IPv4 in particular when the initial try doesn't work, but it does take too long if the packet is silently dropped somewhere. If there is an ICMP unreachable there is no real delay. Worst case is a path MTU discovery black hole, then browsers generally don't fall back.
Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the interface segregated. I have also read Jordi? saying that no dual naming should occur, but I think this is unrealistic. (Sorry if I misquoted you, Jordi)
It would be good if more ISPs deployed 6to4 gateways so the 6to4 experience would be better.
We are. There are an unending supply of small details that are in the way at the moment. :-) Best, Marty