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

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

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