https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435167
--- Comment #5 from Thiago Macieira <thi...@kde.org> --- (In reply to 2wxsy58236r3 from comment #4) > My network is also IPv4/IPv6 hybrid, and it seems that if I unpair and pair > the devices again, and then browse the device via Dolphin, IPv6 will be used. > > But after a period of time, it will fallback to IPv4 again. It seems that > IPv4 is preferred most of the times. That's not good. The selection should be deterministic, preferably using established RFCs (3484 and 6724 come to mind, but I don't think they are correct for this purpose). Since they are always intra-network (link-local) addresses, I suppose we should prefer the local addresses to avoid accidentally trafficking over routers and over the Internet, in which case the order should be: 1) IPv6 link-local addresses, if possible (fe80::/64) - not always possible because they need a scope identifier in the address and some tools will not like that 2) IPv4 link-local addresses (169.254.0.0/16) 3) IPv6 realm-local addresses (you can probably ignore this) 4) IPv6 site-local addresses (fec0::/8 [deprecated], you can probably ignore this) 5) IPv6 unique local addresses (fc00::/7) 6) IPv4 addresses reserved by RFC 1918 and 6598 (10.0.0.0/8, 100.64.0.0/10, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) 7) IPv6 global addresses 8) IPv4 global addresses Or, alternatively speaking, sort addresses by ascending scope by grouping the IPv6 local addresses with IPv4 private-use and shared-use ones, and IPv6 preferred over IPv4 in each scope. See https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xml#ipv6-scope for the full list. IPv6 v4-compat (::/96), Teredo (2001:0::/32) and 6to4 (2002::/16) addresses should be excluded. IPv6 v4-mapped addresses (::ffff:0.0.0.0/32) should be treated like IPv4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
