TID: FMail-W32 2.1.3.7-B20170919
RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
TZUTC: 0100
CHRS: CP850 2
MSGID: 2:280/5555 622b2249
REPLY: 2:240/1120.29 46810784
Hello Tim,

On Thursday March 10 2022 23:09, you wrote to me:

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

 TS> Nice workaround and indeed worse than the direct connection. However,
 TS> I suppose this uses a different hostname than the IPv6 address of the
 TS> same node and thus again is no case where the client can choose?

Presently I have the 4to6 proxy on a different host name. In one of my DS-Lite
emulation experiments I put it on the same host name as my IPv6 address. When
push comes to shove and my provider puts me on DS-Lite, I will add the 4to6
proxy on my normal host name. This works as intended because "everyone" in
Fidonet connects via IPv4 whenever possible. That is until I met Winpoint...

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

 TS> Ouch. Why?

Rumour has it that is is a (temporary?) problem with dyndns. They support
dynamic IPv6 but their system will not allow to configure an IPv6 address
without an IPv4 address. So their DS-Lite cuistomers have no choice but to add
a fake IPv4 address. This works because "everyone" connects via IPv6 when
possible...

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

 TS> For the same host name?

Yes, See above.

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

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

 TS> All true, but than again there will simply be no IPv4 address to
 TS> choose ;)

When the transition is completed. I am referring to the fase that "everyone"
already has IPv6 but IPv4 is not switched off yet. When providers start
thinking "can we switch off IPv4 yet? they will look at their customers. They
will see: Hmm. customer Schattkowsky still uses IPv4. So we can not switch off
IPv4 yet..."


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: he.net certified sage (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: 396/45 460/58 712/848 770/1 2452/250
PATH: 280/5555 464 712/848 229/426