On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 09:51:26PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > > | if you have to disable ipv6 to make "the internet connection fast", > | the setup at your provider is broken - Debian comes with working out > | of the box support for ipv6, if you need to disable it to make the > | network work for you, there is something wrong on the network. > > This is probably the same bug as > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=435646, which while a > bug in the DSL router of users is not possible for most of them to work > around, while fairly trivial for us to work around in libc. (Heck, I > believe newer libcs already have the fix in.) > > (I think we should fix it, but I'm not going to fight that battle again, > since apparently having loopback ipv6 when no other IPv6 address is > configured working is more important than making Debian usable for > certain people without having to disable ipv6. See 441857 for the other > bug in the story.) Having working local networking is important. We wouldn't consider broken IPv4 loopback acceptable, and broken IPv6 loopback is just as bad. The idea behind the patch isn't bad, but the implementation proposed here is too naïve. The assumption that you only want working IPv6 name resolution when you have a globally-scoped IPv6 address is too simplistic. Not only do you have the local loopback, you also have link-local addresses which you can legitimately use. Does zeroconf support these? Fundamentally breaking IPv6 for these use cases to work around broken routing hardware is IMO a step too far. If there's a better metric for detecting that IPv6 name resolution is broken, and then disabling it, I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as it doesn't break things which are currently working. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Description: Digital signature