On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:30 AM, Markku Miettinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Still, it's not IPv6 to blame, but more ignorant developers. It's just too > easy to leave things as they are than to add somewhat complex networking > logic, even that it would improve service level. I don't disagree with you in principle, but I have to work with reality. :-) > If the pool would enable IPv6 for everything I'd bet that pretty much no one > would even notice at the user level. Even the tunnels work reliably enough > for end user NTP needs. (Excluding the zones with very few IPv6 servers of > course, which might get to a real problem, but it's no different than having > too little severs in general?) Many more zones have "too little IPv6 servers" than "too little severs in general". I have some work on my todo to better deal with "too little servers" in general, when I've implemented that I can make it also handle IPv6 and setup the data appropriately for countries with enough IPv6 servers. > Additionally to below, the tunnel users won't even start using IPv6 as the OS > resolves prefer native IPv4 instead. With native IPv6 one is _very_ unlikely > to see any difference if there are enough servers available. He might even > get better results with it most of the time. The NTP Pool users are using all sorts of unusual operating systems, software and who knows what – I don't think you can be so sure that they'll all know if their IPv6 is tunneled/working/reliable or not. Obviously long term IPv6 and IPv4 will be on "even footing" in the system; I am just explaining why I'm threading very cautiously. Another problem is that the geo targeting for IPv6 is (still) way way way behind the quality of the IPv4 targeting. Ask _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
