[158513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Nov 30 21:47:25 2012
In-Reply-To: <20121130231200.F15172C70366@drugs.dv.isc.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:46:42 -0500
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
