Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    IPV6    |    The convoluted hot-mess that is IPV6    |    4,612 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,138 of 4,612    |
|    Michiel van der Vlist to Tony Langdon    |
|    finaly for me    |
|    18 Mar 18 16:10:44    |
      Hello Tony,              On Sunday March 18 2018 08:46, you wrote to me:               MvV>> I prefer a path that avoids nodes that do not support IPv6. In        MvV>> the above example only two nodes do not support IPv6, so while        MvV>> it is not optimal, it is not all that bad either...               TL> From a message transfer point of view, IP protocol doesn't matter.              Some claim that IPv6 is slightly faster than IPv4. http://www.po       aroo.net/ispcol/2016-08/v6perf.html       But even if that claim can be substantiated, it is irrelevant for Fidonet.               TL> Most people would regard timely delivery as the measure of        TL> "efficiency".              Reliability and stability of the connection is also a factor I'd say.               TL> If the fastest path goes via IPv4 or even dialup, who cares?              In the case of dialup: those who's dial up line involves cost, as often was       the case in the POTS only days...               TL> (other than people in this echo ;) ).              Well, /here/ is where the people in this echo can be found. So most of the       people that read this probably do care. Call me en elitist, but supporting       IPv6 still isn't an automatism. It requires some extra effort. My guess is       that those willing and able to make that extra effort have a tighter bond to       their system than those who do not bother. On average of course, but my       impressiosn is that there are a lot of nodes that just run on inertia rather       than active sysop involvement. You will find less of those among the members       of the IPv6 club.               TL> That said, I will encourage IPv6 support where possible, and run IPv6        TL> on all of my systems that support it (which is almost everything).              Same here. Plus that when adding new links and having to make a choice, I       prefer to link to the IPv6 capable node over linking to the IPv4 only node.              Cheers, Michiel              --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303        * Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca