On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > In message > <cap-gugwtcoafenkqsxsssomxmy1sqs2ofaprv26ww+gfvfp...@mail.gmail.com>, > William Herrin writes: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Randy <na...@afxr.net> wrote: >> > It wasn't difficult to update to ipv6, only some reading was needed, don't >> > know what the fuss is =D >> >> Go test it against a dual stack remote host with the Tunnel's >> addresses still configured on your hosts but packet filtering set to >> silently drop packets on the IPv6 tunnel. Then work through the >> implications of what you observe. > > Go test your IPv4 code against a half broken multi-homed server. > There is no difference.
Which is why the common and successful strategy in engineering a reliable IPv4 system is to use a single IP address for each service and let BGP handle multihoming. Using a single IP address is no longer possible for dual-stacked hosts, so your dual stacked client code has to handle it instead. > With dual stack [...] no more ignoring the issue. Exactly. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
