Re: net.ipv6.conf.intf.disable_ipv6 behavior changes
Am 03.09.22 um 06:32 schrieb Casey Deccio:
>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 8:14 PM, Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> wrote
>> We got him. :) Casey, you file the bug report, Okay?
> Done! https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018999
> Thanks for all the help!
You are very welcome.
Thanks a lot for this conversation, which felt very pleasant to me, and
kind, productive, and helpful, even though especially my initial reply
was quite tight-lipped. Thanks to our well-working cooperation. We've
successfully and quite quickly pinpointed the cause of a real-world
problem that likely affects many others.
^5
IMHO, this is a good example of how I wish the Debian/FLOSS community to
always be. Or any good community, for that matter. If I may: Very well
done, Casey. *shoulder tap*
What caught my initial attention was the possibility of the kernel
broadly changing its behavior within a stable release, which in itself
would pose a huge problem, which to prevent is the very purpose of
stable. Glad that turned out to be false. Your appreciativeness
encouraged me to follow up on this, which rewarded me with quite some
fun in helping to solve this little puzzle with you, and with the bonus
of a few decoys in our way. ;D Out of curiosity I've subscribed to your
bug #1018999. Very well written. Its outcome we'll see.
As to if, when, and how it might get fixed, I'm not all that optimistic,
so you might want to stick with any workarounds for a while. (maybe a
tailored deb package that _Conflicts_: connman and _Recommends_:
network-manager, or else maybe a kernel boot command line parameter
"ipv6.disable=1", which completely overrides sysctl, or whatever may
suit your needs)
Although connman is actively being maintained upstream and in Debian
right now, it's far from granted this bug will be acknowledged as such
at all, either in Debian or upstream. Otherwise it might be dismissed as
connman's "expected behavior". Although I'm not in favor of that in this
case, I do understand the argument that a program designed for the sole
purpose of managing network interfaces, actually manages network
interfaces. Maybe not in the way we'd like. Maybe it could manage them
to more satisfaction by asking permission before overriding the user's
preference to disable_ipv6, which it doesn't. Thus #1018999.
In case your bug gets acknowledged, (which is a huge if) I'd expect any
resolution to appear in stable no sooner than in Bookworm, whenever that
may be released. (...very purpose of stable...) Also, in case bug
#1018999 is not going to be fully resolved to your needs, we might
consider filing a wishlist "bug report" against lxde to at least change
their recommendation into something less troublesome, such as
network-manager maybe. Which does not interfere with the user's
preferences in the same way.
Oh BTW, I ought to file another bug report against connman (if not
already pending) for not being able to be installed via ssh in a DHCP
environment. (because during postinst it reconfigures the network
interfaces, failing to use the proper FQDN in DHCP requests, thus
getting a new IP address assigned and cutting off the ssh session) Not
quite certain, but I guess this violates some existing Debian policy, or
else a new Debian policy to come into place rather soon. (bug report
against debian-policy)
Thank you Casey for being part of the Debian community. Your
participation makes Debian a better place to be, so please keep it up!
--
Kevin
Reply to: