MSGID: 2:240/1120.29 49abfe85   
   CHRS: CP850 2   
   TZUTC: 0100   
   REPLY: 2:280/5555 622cb026   
   //Hello Michiel,//   
      
   on *12.03.22* at *14:16:05* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*   
   to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.   
      
    MvdV> A fallback is in order when there is more than one IP adress to choose   
    MvdV> from and the attempt to connect with the first choice fails for one   
    MvdV> reason or another. This is not related to IPv6 vs IPv4 per s‚. It could   
    MvdV> be that the host presents several IPv4 addresses but no IPv6 address.   
    MvdV> Or the other way around, it presents more than one IPv6 address but no   
    MvdV> IPv4 address. Or it could produce a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. But   
    MvdV> let us focus on the case that the choice is between IPv6 and IPv4.   
      
   All true, but currently unimplemented in WP and from an implementation   
   perspective all the same. I agree, it would be nice to have that in, but   
   currently I see little practical benefit for the user and thus focus on other   
   stuff. It will rest on the list until the more urgent stuff is done.     
      
    MvdV> Your conjecture that IPv4 is the better choice instead of the choice   
    MvdV> presented by the OS in case there is no fallback mechanism is based on   
    MvdV> the assumption that in general IPv4 has a better chance of resulting in   
    MvdV> a connection than IPv6.    
      
   Indeed.   
      
    MvdV> As we discussed before, that may have been a   
    MvdV> valid assumption ten years ago, but it certainly does not hold today.   
      
   While I agree that this has become much less of an issue, I still don't see   
   what should tip the gauge into the other direction.   
      
    MvdV> Yes, one may still run into a situation where an IPv6 connection fails   
    MvdV> and an IPv4 connection can be established. But one may just as well run   
    MvdV> into the reverse situation. I have no personal experience with the   
    MvdV> latter situation.    
      
   I (just like you) so far have never seen IPv6 work while IPv4 failed. Sure,   
   this can happen. But its just a cheap heuristics anyway.   
      
    MvdV> My system always tries the OS choice first, which   
    MvdV> (nearly) always is IPv6. So I do not know if it ever happens that an   
    MvdV> IPv4 connect fails and a subsequent IPv6 succeeds. My binkd does not   
    MvdV> try to outsmart the OS in choosing between IPv4 and IPv6. But I have no   
    MvdV> reason to think that the one will happen more often than the other.    
      
   I still would bet that there are more IPv6 issues in the wild. However, since   
   the OS now tries to detect these and disables IPv6 automatically, less users   
   run into it.   
      
    MvdV> In this case I do not think it is a good idea to try to outsmart   
    MvdV> Windows...   
      
   Actually this is still an implication read in the wrong direction. Just   
   because windows now has less trouble using IPv6, there is no way to conclude   
   that IPv4 has gotten worse than IPv6 now.   
      
    TS>> I still keep thinking (and nothing brought forward so far has been a   
    TS>> valid argument against it) that in practice there are usually only   
    TS>> benefits and no drawbacks of preferring IPv4 over IPv6 when both are   
    TS>> available.   
      
    MvdV> I already mentioned the situation that the Winpoint user is on a   
    MvdV> DS-Lite connection and the BOSS node is Dual Stack.    
      
   Where ist the problem? DS-Lite will work fine from the client (WP) side.   
      
    MvdV> I also mentioned the situation that the BOSS node is on a DS-LIite   
    MvdV> connection but presents an (invalid) IPv4 address nevertheless.   
      
   Not an argument either way. Could equally be that the IPv6 is invalid, but the   
   IPv4.     
      
    TS>> On the other side, there usually exists absolutely no benefit for the   
    TS>> user in choosing IPv6 in that scenario.   
      
    MvdV> Maybe not from the POV of the user,   
      
   That is my perspective for the implementation: What benefits the user.   
      
    MvdV> but for the internet as a whole choosing IPv4 where IPv6 is possible is   
    MvdV> detrimental regarding the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. That transition   
    MvdV> is unavoidable and the faster it is completed, the better.   
      
   While I welcome that transition, WP is certainly not the place to enforce it.   
      
   Regards,   
   Tim   
      
   --- WinPoint 407.0   
    * Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/120 15/0 18/0 106/201 123/0 129/331 138/146 153/7715 218/700   
   SEEN-BY: 229/110 317 426 428 664 700 240/1120 250/1 266/512 275/100   
   SEEN-BY: 275/1000 282/1038 291/111 292/854 301/1 317/3 320/219 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 342/11 371/0 396/45 460/58 640/1321 712/848 2452/250 3634/0   
   SEEN-BY: 3634/12   
   PATH: 240/1120 3634/12 153/7715 229/426