Re: IPv6 standard?

[Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>]

In message <3f4922c70909230624p6653f9dckbac05e0465ea983f at mail.gmail.com>, IETF M
ember Dave Aronson writes:
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
> > Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable than pure IPv4 or pure
> > IPv6?
> 
> Just from a pure software-engineering standpoint, with no reference to
> the stability of current stacks nor the exact tasks at hand, it seems
> quite likely.  More code, doing more stuff, generally means more
> things that can go wrong.
> 
> -Dave

It also depends on how you turn it on.   If you only have local
IPv6 connectivity it is more problematic than if you have global
IPv6 connectivity.

Dual stack also tends to discovers all the applications which really
don't support connecting to multi-homed machines correctly.  This is
more true when you only have local connectivity.

That being said I've run dual stack for the last 5 years without
much in the way of problems.  My IPv6 connectivity is a tunnel
across the Pacific and when the tunnel goes down about the only
thing I notice is slower connections which would probably go if I
was to run a routing protocol over the tunnel.

Mark
 
> -- 
> Dave Aronson, software engineer or trainer for hire.
> Looking for job (or contract) in Washington DC area.
> See http://davearonson.com/ for resume & other info.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org