On 2017-07-19 18:02:10 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:57:09PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > IPv6 is tried *first* (unless things have changed since 2015). > > So, this would mean that I would have got the IPv4 failures, not > > the IPv6 ones. > > We simply iterate the getaddrinfo() results, we don't prefer one > protocol version over the other - not sure if getaddrinfo() does > that.
AFAIK, getaddrinfo() has sorting rules (RFC 3484, with the defaults overridden by /etc/gai.conf). > > The previous results were in 2015. Different context. > > Well, different "bug" then, and this one is fixed? Perhaps. Before this test where I could see the timeout, I did a usual update with aptitude and saw that it hanged on IPv6 addresses. Unfortunately I did not have the chance to see the output when I came back to it, and there was nothing in the logs. I now assume that I got a timeout too and IPv4 was used after it. > I don't think 10 seconds timeout for *any* data (one TCP packet) > is too low, really. Shouldn't the default timeout be lowered, then? Note: I have already noticed stales longer than 10 seconds for the data. However, in these cases, the server was hardly usable, and the solution was to choose a different server. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
