Bug#636871: provide a command-line switch to prefer IPv6 or IPv4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 11/20/16 13:12, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:23:25AM +0000, Tim Small wrote:
>> There are already system-wide mechanisms to change the default stack which is used (/etc/gai.conf), and apt has:
>>
>> -o Acquire::ForceIPv4
>
> Indeed, the option exists already (but it is -o Acquire::ForceIPv4=1 ).
>
Thats catchy ;-)
> I don't think we should be "wasting" single-char options on a workaround for a problem which (hopefully) is on rapid decline, so I consider that part of the request(s) done, but:
>
You missed the point that "-4" and "-6" are common command line flags exactly
for this purpose, similar to "-n" for a dry run mode, "-v", "-h", "-d", etc.
What would you expect to happen if you run "somenetworktool -4"?
>
>> What might be better (and would be a useful addition) would be to add fast fallback ("Happy Eyeballs" RFC6555) support to apt, especially when run in interactive mode. I'm not familiar with the code, but I believe
>
>> that libcurl includes RFC6555 support, and since apt uses libcurl, it might be easy to turn this on (or it might not).
>
I haven't read the whole RFC yet, but that would be fine with me.
It might be necessary to restrict network to IPv4, though, even if
IPv6 appears to be working, for example on a bad certificate, testing
issues, out-of-date repositories, unwanted proxies, local access
restrictions, etc. Maybe thats too far-fetched.
Just my $0.02, of course.
Thanx for your support
Regards
Harri
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEyBAEBCAAdFiEEH2V614LbR/u1O+a1Cp4qnmbTgcsFAlg9v9MACgkQCp4qnmbT
gcvBCwf4ztPYzUMyZTiErEMgPjQN3uzp1XU13oUrXmJlX8hN58umpuWmgixMyIms
RT01GJu4/EdzcM/ccY/Y5cw+jKb6FeLE/Dr/xVVUvJs5siJXgMt/Pn1xzLLvKdcS
dkvKyHEqjTRHEmQMlkPp/Z7QTML0WHMk6P2Tfc0AZI90qt5bwtJK3+y3z6hbUyzK
SaSRXE+j+CuSRUBW07vRDWQ1x9734FFxfpDu93AXxHiKn3O5OJlAlcVuZtiOa2lP
KlOipHbfcaAgEHZnz4s0XAeSzm1UJTeJ6ECGh3MFR9aRxNyfjE39UjHi+vUr9nMH
P5+xnklrVsK9kqel/luraAvtKCAf
=jLrk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: