Re: net.ipv6.conf.intf.disable_ipv6 behavior changes
> On Sep 3, 2022, at 7:30 PM, Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
Indeed! Thanks for the kind works and helpful and kind interactions. It's a two-way street, after all :)
> 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
There's more where that came from :)
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/08/msg00685.html
I've been sitting on that one for over a year, since I first upgraded some of my machines to bullseye.
> Out of curiosity I've subscribed to your
> bug #1018999. Very well written. Its outcome we'll see.
Thanks. Yes, we'll see what happens.
>
> 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)
I've ended up just hacking my own software to 1) disable IPv6 (again) on all interfaces, after they are up; 2) reset the network (in this case, the forwarding tables of the switch); and then 3) start the network scenario (whatever it is) [1]. It's not as clean, but I don't have to worry about what software might be third-party software (e.g., connman) might be installed on someone's system that might be running my software and how it might change, etc.
> 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...)
It sounds right to me. Of course, it all depends on if there is agreement that the behavior is a bug and how many others it is affecting.
> 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.
Could be. I'm not sure how connman is used (by lxde), whether the (current) disable_ipv6 behavior by connman is intentional, etc. I suppose that you and I have a sour taste in our mouths because of behavior that is "obviously" buggy, but others might see it as babies and bath water.
> 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)
Could be, though admittedly, I'm not expert on 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!
Thanks! Glad to be here. I've been using Debian for over 20 years, but I've only recently (re-)subscribed to the user lists :O
Casey
[1] https://github.com/cdeccio/cougarnet/pull/15/files
Reply to: