Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:19:22 +0100 (BST) From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Cc: itojun@iijlab.net, Robert <robert@chalmers.com.au>, 6bone <6bone@ISI.EDU>, ipv6users <users@ipv6.org>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: A DNS question re 6to6/IPv6 host IN A records. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0204201118380.28128-100000@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204191651110.1190-100000@netcore.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Pekka Savola wrote: > That is true, but it may have it's drawbacks. Often, still, IPv6 > connectivity is worse than with IPv4. People who are dual-stack will use > IPv6 when trying to reach 'nanguo'. It may be more unoptimal yet. > > For conservative IPv6 adoption, I recommend the former (at least first). > For more radical IPv6 adoption, and for non-production services, the > latter is usually more suitable. You also want to be very careful with services where you use a common name space, one example with an I-D wtitten for it being MX hosts. Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0204201118380.28128-100000>