That time IPv6 farted in Gene's church (Was Re: forcedeth?)
Hello,
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 11:25:26AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 25 May 2019 07:33:01 am Andy Smith wrote:
> > My recollection was that none of that was ever established in any of
> > the threads you posted here, so that is a really weird thing to keep
> > stating. Did IPv6 use all your toilet paper and kick your dog or
> > something?
>
> You just pulled my trigger.
>
> No Andy, it didn't drink my last beer (Murphy does that), or kill any
> kittens but it did totally disable ipv4. How? Simply by refusing to
> apply a route/gateway to the ipv4 settings we do manually.
Can you show the archive link to the email where it was established
that having IPv6 enabled in the kernel prevented your IPv4
configuration from being applied?
Otherwise that is a very strange thing to keep asserting.
> And depending on the phase of the moon, those of us on host file
> networks are forced to edit the /e/n/i/config files and
> immediately chattr +i them in order to protect them from N-M's
> incessant meddling, ditto for resolv.conf, which we have to make
> into a real file, and chattr +i it for the same reason. For a
> while we could remove N-M on armhf-jessie but now its somehow
> linked to our choice of desktops so the only way is to rm it by
> hand, or chattr +i everything it touches. N-M at least has the
> common decency to not complain or go crazy when it finds itself
> locked out of its playpen. Unforch I can't say the same for hpfax,
> in the hplip package you get with cups. Its crashed this machine
> 6 or 7 times by killing hid-common, leaving the only working
> button the reset button on the machines front panel. Somebody put
> a call to hpfax in the root crontab, and when it gets called with
> nothing to do it goes postal killing all input devices on the usb
> bus by killing hid-common. A separate problem of course, one that
> hp needs to fix before buster goes live.
Unclear how any of the above is or could ever be related to IPv6.
> You folks with ipv6 all think we should all just switch and be done with
> it,
Vast majority of Linux users already switched to having IPv6
enabled, because it has been enabled by default for years, and IPv6
addresses appear on every interface.
If you are finding bugs then it would be good to report them instead
of howling at the moon.
> You all claim that N-M won't bother an interface defined as static. Thats
> an outright blatant lie,
I'm sure I may have said that somewhere although I don't think I've
said it to you. But also, it doesn't seem to have any relationship
to IPv6.
Again, I suggest if you find bugs in NetworkManager that you report
them, not invoke the IPv6 bogey man until and unless you're certain
that it is that dread creature which plagues you.
> Put a kill switch in that puppy. defaulted to off. And take a survey to
> see how many have turned it on a year from now. I'll be apologetic if
> its more than the 5% carrying their lappy to dunkin donuts.
Could you apologise right now then since IPv6 has already been
enabled for decades and the vast majority of users experience no
problem?
> /ipv6 rant.
Rants aren't so bad, it's when they are utterly clueless and devoid
of factual content one could tend to come off looking like an
absolute lunatic.
Hopefully though you aren't a lunatic and can point me to this exact
situation where the enablement of IPv6 in your kernel caused
something to break, cos then we can get some bugs fixed instead of
just spilling more performance art onto the interwebs.
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Reply to: