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