From: Bill Owens (no email)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 15:28:00 EDT
At 11:56 -0700 9/2/03, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Nenad Pudar wrote:
>
>> Jared
>>
>> Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not
>> the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time)
>> "The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first
>> forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really
>> want at this stage.
>
>really, why not? I don't know anyone who wants to use v6 only if v4
>connection attemts fail.
This problem has been discussed at some length in various of the IPv6
working groups (I can't even recall which ones - they all blur
together ;) and by Sebastien Roy, Alain Durand and James Paugh in
draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt
By the way, my IPv6 connectivity to nether.net is actually better than v4:
ping -c 10 -q puck.nether.net
PING puck.nether.net (204.42.254.5): 56 data bytes
--- puck.nether.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 214.071/251.098/289.917 ms
ping6 -c 10 -q puck.nether.net
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:468:901:1:203:93ff:fed6:dfcc -->
2001:418:3f4::2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8
--- puck.nether.net ping6 statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 161.488/174.261/217.397 ms
Bill.
|
|
|