> The basic idea is that we want to make sure that either there's no
> IPv6 at all, or IPv6 works fine.
where by "fine" you actually mean something much stronger:
> IPv6 at least as good as IPv4
Okay, let's consider people who want IPv6 but (for whatever reason)
cannot ensure that their IPv6 is
tag 268631 - wontfix
thanks
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:03:22PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > Tagging the bug as wontfix.
>
> Aurélien,
>
> You've tagged this bug as ``wontfix'' after I renamed it to
>
> gai.conf difficult to find
>
> While I fully agree with you that the current defa
> Tagging the bug as wontfix.
Aurélien,
You've tagged this bug as ``wontfix'' after I renamed it to
gai.conf difficult to find
While I fully agree with you that the current default should remain,
I still think we should point users at gai.conf in a more visible
manner.
Do I have your permis
>> There are excellent reasons why IPv6 is preferred to IPv4 by
>> default, and this is not going to change.
>
> I'm very interested in this! What are the reasons?
The basic idea is that we want to make sure that either there's no IPv6
at all, or IPv6 works fine. This is important, since it's e
> They may do that based on geodns, but at least it is done for some
> subnet including mine.
Huh. Why do you suppose Google would do such an odd thing?
--Barak.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
> Given the problem you point out with this particular host, it's quite
> ironic, isn't it? What about getting them to fix it?
> ...
> Maybe it's because people complain on the BTS that IPv6 is preferred
> over IPv4 by default and this causes issues with ftp.ie.debian.org
> instead of telling the f
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > ... Google is fully IPv6-enabled
>
> Sort of. I've used http://ipv6.google.com/. But Google has IPv6
> disabled at the DNS level for www.google.com, albeit perhaps only for
> some requests. Watch:
WRONG:
$ host -t
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" wrote:
> Please understand, I'm a big IPv6 advocate.
I wouldn't have guessed. I think it showed, didn't it?
> administration. The host ftp.ie.debian.org is centrally hosted at
> heanet.ie, which is a centre for IPv6 deployment and expertise, a
> sixxs tunnel broker, whic
Please understand, I'm a big IPv6 advocate. I use it on all my own
machines. It is deployed on some local networks I use. There is
extraordinarily strong IPv6 expertise here. The guy who maintains our
network (David Malone) literally wrote the book on IPv6 network
administration. The host ftp.
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" wrote:
Hi,
>> In the world I live in, my ISP was among the very first here to
>> deploy native IPv6 on DSL *years* ago and is actively seeking IPv6
>> peering opportunities with as many networks as possible.
>
> That is great. Do they artificially slow down IPv4 in order
> In the world I live in, my ISP was among the very first here to
> deploy native IPv6 on DSL *years* ago and is actively seeking IPv6
> peering opportunities with as many networks as possible.
That is great. Do they artificially slow down IPv4 in order to ensure
that IPv6 is faster?
> IPv6 conn
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" wrote:
Hi,
> For the next few years at least, when both are available, IPv4 will
> typically be faster and more reliable than IPv6. That is the world we
> are living in.
In the world I live in, my ISP was among the very first here to deploy
native IPv6 on DSL *years* ago
> Yes, let's deploy IPv6, but also make sure that nobody use it!
If I understand what you're saying correctly, in essence, you feel sad
inside when two IPv6-enabled hosts communicate using IPv4.
That is not a technical argument.
For the next few years at least, when both are available, IPv4 will
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 06:36:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> (The only serious argument I've heard boils down to: some IPv4 setups
> are broken by NAT and icky firewalls, and IPv6 isn't. One non-serious
> argument I've heard is: if IPv6 is not preferred then the v6 network
> will not ge
> There are excellent reasons why IPv6 is preferred to IPv4 by
> default, and this is not going to change.
I'm very interested in this! What are the reasons?
(The only serious argument I've heard boils down to: some IPv4 setups
are broken by NAT and icky firewalls, and IPv6 isn't. One non-seri
severity 268631 wishlist
tag 268631 + wontfix
thanks
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:59:16AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > ... It doesn't belong in APT, it should be a global, system-wide
> > preference. I don't feel like adjusting the preferences of every
> > single network program whenever
reassign 268631 libc6
retitle 268631 gai.conf difficult to find
severity 268631 minor
thanks
>> Barak: if IPv6 is much slower than IPv4, please adjust the
>> preferences in /etc/gai.conf. Just say
>> precedence :::0:0/96 100
> That configuration file is impossible for non-super-uber-expe
> ... It doesn't belong in APT, it should be a global, system-wide
> preference. I don't feel like adjusting the preferences of every
> single network program whenever I switch from a good IPv6 to a bad
> IPv6 network.
I absolutely agree.
> Barak: if IPv6 is much slower than IPv4, please adjust
> v4 is much faster on this route than v6. I suspect this is typical of
> IPv6-enabled machines, and will remain so for at least ten years.
Please do not do that in APT. It doesn't belong in APT, it should be
a global, system-wide preference. I don't feel like adjusting the
preferences of every
19 matches
Mail list logo
