Hi Martin, On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 05:27:12PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > Uff. I hadn't even considered that aspect yet. Yeah this would get people > > fuming :D > > It happened recently with one of my hosts. Thank goodness it happens > to sit in the next room, so I was able to just walk over and restart > ifupdown. That's one aspect where I prefer dhclient's behavior of > retrying at regular intervals, rather than giving up and reverting to > IPv4LL.
Now imagine having to do that with a fleet of thousands or more and exponentially scale effort to account for the rage factor ;-) > > > However, I'm not entirely convinced that we can presume IPv6LL to be > > > available at all times. I welcome opinions on this specific point. > > > > The way I see it IPv4LL was never widely adopted (by applications) in the > > first place due to only showing up when there's network problems > > already. OTOH IPv6 LLs are always there where applications can use them > > unless users intervene with ill-advised disablement of IPv6. > > Agreed. Unless someone purposely disables IPv6 support or connects via > an old router that doesn't support IPv6, IPv6LL should always work. There is no router support needed for IPv6LL to work. L2 needs to be transparent to ICMPv6, but it is on stupid unmanaged switches and even ancient managed switches I wouldn't expect to block this without explicit admin intervention. > > We'd have to remove that Provides yeah. > > That's already gone. My point mostly was that if we add 'noipv4ll' to > the config Debian ships, we technically no longer support the feature > by default (although it can obviously be re-enabled by commenting it > out). Yeah I saw that. I was just confirming it's the right thing to do from my PoV. --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
