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.
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.
