[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#535833: marked as done (general: Slow internet on iceweasel, epiphany and so on...)

]] Roger Leigh 

| Having working local networking is important.  We wouldn't consider
| broken IPv4 loopback acceptable, and broken IPv6 loopback is just as
| bad.

Sure, having it working is important.  Is it more important than keeping
those (often new) users for whom Debian appears useless because of its
perceived poor network performance?

Anyway, IIRC this is now solved in glibc by sending out the queries in
parallel and returning the first answer you get.

| 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.

FWIW, it roughly matches what Mac OS X and Windows do.

| 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.

Does anybody use IPv6-only link-local?

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: