[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
thank you for your comment.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm reading draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 and I found something
that I find somewhat troublesome:
2.2.1. IPv4 or IPv6 prioritization The default policy table gives IPv6
addresses higher precedence than IPv4 addresses. There seem to be many
cases, however, where network administrators want to control the address
selection policy of end- hosts the other way around.
I have a hard time believing this is true. Why would anyone want to
enable IPv6 and then leave it unused? And if it is true, it's highly
problematic: if IPv6 capability is available but not used, this means
that problems (that are common when deploying new technologies) will
remain unseen and therefore unfixed.
We've found some operational reasons for IPv6-IPv4 priority control.
- As mentioned some time before at this ML, smooth and conservative
IPv4 to IPv6 transition might be one reason.
The transition looks like:
IPv4 only network,
-> IPv4 and IPv6 network with IPv4 prioritized.
-> IPv4 and IPv6 network with IPv6 prioritized.
-> IPv6 only network
- Another case might be like you have temporariliy extremely poor IPv6
access line and want to use that only when connecting to IPv6-only
However, I agree that a new technology, such as IPv6, should be
generally prioritized than the old one.