Talk:IPv6 brokenness and DNS whitelisting

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Networking

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.

On notability[edit]

I'm aware that the term "IPv6 brokenness" itself is a neologism, and not of itself notable. However, this article is not about the term, but the topic it refers to, which is most definitely notable, as can be seen from the cited coverage in multiple mainstream published sources. See WP:NOTABILITY for the exact criteria. There are more still out there if needed.

If you can think of a better title (and, for good or ill, the term "ipv6 brokenness" is probably the most commonly used in venues such as NANOG and RIPE) you're welcome to move the article. I've considered "dual-stack client loss" as an alternative, but it has even fewer hits, sounds vague, and is not so vivid a term. -- The Anome (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative IPv6 brokenness[edit]

The article is completely obsolete. Since the widely use of carrier grade NAT IPv4-connections are often more unstable than IPv6-connections. Also google doesn’t use white listing anymore, it has just one blacklist. Tschäfer (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that something being in the past does not disqualify it from having an article, and if anything the opposite is true. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]