On 30/05/2007, at 11:33 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> This is useless. Users need to use the same name
for both IPv4 and
>> IPv6,
>> they should not notice it.
>> And if there are issues (my experience is not that
one), we need
>> to know
>> them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as
sooner as we
>> start, sooner
>> we can sort it out, if required.
>
> In the past we've used "www6" for v6 only,
"www4" for v4 only, and
> "www" has both v6 and v4. This means people
can verify their v6
> connectivity by visiting www6, or they can avoid v6 if
they have
> local problems by using www4 (since the site contains
information
> on setting up/troubleshooting v6 it's possible they
can't get to it
> via v6), but if they don't know/care they end up on
"www" which
> gives them whatever their software thinks it can
support.
Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.
Another suggestion I have heard is having www A-only, and
www6 AAAA-
only, and transparently redirecting if they have IPv6
connectivity.
Of course, that requires an IPv4 bootstrap, so is rather
pointless.
--
Nathan Ward
|
