MSGID: 2:240/1120.29 45b0bf06
CHRS: CP850 2
TZUTC: 0100
REPLY: 2:280/5555 62289ce3
//Hello Michiel,//

on *09.03.22* at *12:26:10* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

 TS>> Admittedly, when it comes to IPv6, I still live maybe even more than a
 TS>> decade ago, when that was a good idea. Had other things to do in
 TS>> between. But I agree, that the practice is now different, particularly
 TS>> since nowadays the OS actually takes better care about the Ipv6
 TS>> connection state.

 MvdV> Ten years ago things were different indeed. While IPv6 was introduced
 MvdV> over 20 years ago, ten years ago implemenentations were still more or
 MvdV> less in the infant fase and ever so often IPv6 connections would fail
 MvdV> for one reason or another. Mostly because systems advertised IPv6
 MvdV> connectivity but in fact did not. Nowadays that is rare. And now with
 MvdV> DS-Lite connections, IPv4 is the inferior protocol, so IPv6 should be
 MvdV> the preferred connection whenever possible.

Fully agree. However, since still the clients connects to the host, the debate
becomes pointless for DS-Lite as in that case the host should only present an
IPv6 address. So there is nothing to choose here anyway. 

On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using IPv4 to connect a
host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put it differently: there is no
actual advantage in using IPv6 (other than feeling cool), so whats wrong with
using IPv4 that may actually still have compatibility. Once the connection is
established its all the same anyway.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 404.0
 * Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)
SEEN-BY: 1/120 15/0 18/0 106/201 123/0 129/331 138/146 153/7715 218/700
SEEN-BY: 229/110 317 426 428 664 700 240/1120 250/1 266/512 275/100
SEEN-BY: 275/1000 282/1038 291/111 292/854 301/1 317/3 320/219 335/364
SEEN-BY: 342/11 371/0 396/45 460/58 640/1321 712/848 2452/250 3634/0
SEEN-BY: 3634/12
PATH: 240/1120 3634/12 153/7715 229/426