On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 03:38, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > Well, IPv6 deployment effectively still being experimental, isn't that > > acceptable for sarge? > > Depends on how you define `effectively experimental'. A fair number > of people are using it these days for real things. I'm one of them, but I'd find dpkg asking me about an updated version of nsswitch.conf quite acceptable during a woody->sarge transition, or after doing dist-upgrade on one of my testing boxes. Especially if there was a good changelog entry. But I'm going to agree that the other approach, having dns, dns4, and dns6, is better. > It also means it is impossible to get both IPv6 and IPv4 lookups or you > have to do two lookups instead of one lookup for any record. With dns, dns4, and dns6, I guess that problem would be avoided. Though I think the current query count is three: A6, AAAA, then A for forward and either PTR or DNAME and PTR for reverse. Though I don't think glibc does A6 or DNAME presently.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part