TID: FMail-W32 2.1.3.7-B20170919
RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
TZUTC: 0100
CHRS: CP850 2
MSGID: 2:280/5555 622a67b1
REPLY: 2:240/1120.29 45b0bf06
Hello Tim,

On Wednesday March 09 2022 17:47, you wrote to me:

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

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

In the case of DS-Lite the host can add the IPv4 adress of a 4 to 6 proxy like
feste-ip.net to make it possible for an IPv4 only client to connect. I have
added such a proxy just in case my provider decides to put me on DS-Lite.
Obviously in such a case the direct IPv6 connect is preferable over the 4 to 6
proxy.

http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxp.art
http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxp2.art
http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxpr2.art
http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltsol.art
http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxp21.art

Also there are a few quircks in the Fidonet nodelist. Check out 1:134/102 and
1:134/302. They present a link local IPv4 address that can not be connected
with.

One should not assume that a node that is on a DS_Lite connection never
presents an IPv4 address in addition to IPv6 address(es)

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

Being connectable by both IPv4 and IPv6 is not the ultimate goal of the IPv4
to IPv6 transition. It does not end when everyone has IPv6. The next step will
be to get rid of IPv4. That will take a while but that is where we are going.
Anyone still being on IPv4 only or anyone giving the _impression_ of being
IPv4 only is in the way of reaching that ultimate goal. To speed up the
transition anyone capable of IPv6 should make IP6 connections for just this
reason alone.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)
SEEN-BY: 15/0 106/201 124/5016 129/331 153/757 7715 203/0 218/700
SEEN-BY: 221/0 229/110 317 426 428 664 700 266/512 280/464 5003 5555
SEEN-BY: 282/1038 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 317/3 320/219 341/234
SEEN-BY: 396/45 460/58 712/848 2452/250
PATH: 280/5555 464 292/854 229/426