Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #67529 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-15 18:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-05-19 08:09 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Anybody Using IPv6? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-05-15 18:42 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-17 18:01 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 11:05 -0700
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 11:17 -0700
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-05-18 07:16 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2025-05-17 15:13 -0300
Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-18 00:11 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-17 23:45 -0400
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-18 10:02 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-18 20:27 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 08:13 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-19 07:24 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 08:47 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-25 18:44 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-19 19:26 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy (was: Re: Anybody Using IPv6?) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 10:00 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 09:36 +0100
Re: Linux advocacy "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:46 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 09:08 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-25 11:25 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 12:20 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 10:38 +0100
Re: Linux advocacy Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 12:21 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:33 +0100
Re: Linux advocacy Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 17:48 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-20 13:04 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 17:49 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 17:02 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-20 18:34 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 19:43 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-20 19:52 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 23:14 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:46 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 08:05 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-21 09:13 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 10:42 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 13:16 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 14:00 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-05-21 14:30 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 14:45 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 16:53 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 18:30 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-05-21 17:16 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 18:31 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 16:52 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-21 16:47 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 21:14 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 19:16 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-22 09:10 +1000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-22 09:27 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-22 18:16 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-22 20:51 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-21 17:35 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 21:18 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-21 21:10 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 19:22 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 21:21 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-21 03:16 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 08:07 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-21 12:45 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 17:19 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 10:39 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 08:55 +0000
Re: Linux advocacy "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-18 11:07 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 08:14 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-19 12:27 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 14:54 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-19 15:37 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 16:36 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-19 17:31 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-19 17:58 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 08:42 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-25 16:24 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-25 19:35 +0200
Re: Linux advocacy Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-18 09:46 +0100
Re: Linux advocacy Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-18 09:49 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-17 20:50 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2025-05-18 03:26 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-20 00:17 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 10:35 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 12:14 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:35 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 17:45 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 17:00 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 06:55 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-25 03:11 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-06-25 10:01 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-25 11:25 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-25 12:12 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-25 13:50 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:55 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 09:59 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 09:21 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 10:37 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 12:15 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 11:33 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-20 17:47 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-20 17:01 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 06:58 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-20 23:42 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 08:03 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-05-21 08:21 -0700
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-21 21:13 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-21 23:09 +0100
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-22 09:25 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-21 10:47 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 06:56 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-25 03:13 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-06-25 10:05 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-25 04:20 -0400
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-06-25 13:54 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-25 08:45 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-25 11:27 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-18 09:59 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-18 11:12 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-18 20:18 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 08:11 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-19 07:11 +0000
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 09:33 +0200
Re: Anybody Using IPv6? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-19 08:09 +0200
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 12:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Linux advocacy |
| Message-ID | <100hl1v$3of0b$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67586 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-05-20, Marc Haber wrote: > >> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >>><mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>> it to prevent problems. >>>> >>>> That's a really stupid idea. >>> >>>I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >>>has got it working. >> >> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >> it's unused and unconfigured. > >Maybe what's missing here for some of the affected people is configuring >address lookup to prefer IPv4 if they're using nameservers that return >AAAA records? An IPv4 only host will just ignore any AAAA records sent to them. Even if IPv6 is enabled but not available, the host will either immediately see that it doesn't have working IPv6, or it will go through the motions of inspecting the IPv6 routing table, finding that there is no default route and immediately jump back to the application. >(Just a wild guess, but fitting enough that it's probably a good idea to >drop this here:) > > news://news.gmane.io/m3msju6x5x.fsf@lugabout.jhcloos.org > >Although I'm not sure, from the gai.conf online manual page, that just >the mentioned line is sufficient, given it's said to disable the >"default table". I didn't test this myself. I would advise against doing this. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 10:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Linux advocacy |
| Message-ID | <100hijb$25ta5$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67584 |
On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote: > vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>> it to prevent problems. >>> >>> That's a really stupid idea. >> >> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >> has got it working. > > I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when > it's unused and unconfigured. > Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant reach them... > Greetings > Marc -- "It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 12:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Linux advocacy |
| Message-ID | <100hl34$3of0i$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67590 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote: >> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>> it to prevent problems. >>>> >>>> That's a really stupid idea. >>> >>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >>> has got it working. >> >> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >> it's unused and unconfigured. >> >Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >reach them... And where is the problem with that? Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 11:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Linux advocacy |
| Message-ID | <100hlq3$26lpj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67596 |
On 20/05/2025 11:21, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote: >>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>>> it to prevent problems. >>>>> >>>>> That's a really stupid idea. >>>> >>>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >>>> has got it working. >>> >>> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >>> it's unused and unconfigured. >>> >> Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >> reach them... > > And where is the problem with that? > Suddenly you cant find websites > Greetings > Marc -- “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 17:48 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Linux advocacy |
| Message-ID | <100i88r$19k0$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67598 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 20/05/2025 11:21, Marc Haber wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>>>> it to prevent problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a really stupid idea. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >>>>> has got it working. >>>> >>>> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >>>> it's unused and unconfigured. >>>> >>> Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >>> reach them... >> >> And where is the problem with that? >> >Suddenly you cant find websites No. Get yourself acquainted with how DNS and the rest of the Internet works. When you have accumulated enough clue to be a worthy discussion partner, come back. Until then I'll stop wasting my time with you. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 13:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m935taF8pgbU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67596 |
On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber
>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>:
>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable
>>>>>> it to prevent problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a really stupid idea.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP
>>>> has got it working.
>>>
>>> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when
>>> it's unused and unconfigured.
>>>
>> Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant
>> reach them...
>
> And where is the problem with that?
You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The
address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer
tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error:
address unreachable.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 17:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <100i89e$19k3$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67600 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>>>> it to prevent problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a really stupid idea. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >>>>> has got it working. >>>> >>>> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >>>> it's unused and unconfigured. >>>> >>> Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >>> reach them... >> >> And where is the problem with that? > >You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The >address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer >tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error: >address unreachable. Only that that is not the case. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 17:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100i92h$2a8rb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67605 |
On 20/05/2025 16:49, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>>>>> it to prevent problems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a really stupid idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP >>>>>> has got it working. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >>>>> it's unused and unconfigured. >>>>> >>>> Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >>>> reach them... >>> >>> And where is the problem with that? >> >> You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The >> address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer >> tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error: >> address unreachable. > > Only that that is not the case. > Seen it happen. -- When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. Frédéric Bastiat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 18:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m93p9bF8pgcU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67608 |
On 2025-05-20 18:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/05/2025 16:49, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber
>>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in
>>>>>>> <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>:
>>>>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so
>>>>>>>>> I disable
>>>>>>>>> it to prevent problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a really stupid idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP
>>>>>>> has got it working.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> it's unused and unconfigured.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you
>>>>> cant
>>>>> reach them...
>>>>
>>>> And where is the problem with that?
>>>
>>> You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The
>>> address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer
>>> tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error:
>>> address unreachable.
>>
>> Only that that is not the case.
>>
> Seen it happen.
Me too. I asked for advice, and the solution was to give preference to
IPv4 over 6.
Possibly there was some bad configuration somewhere, but where? If it
was out there, it was out of my reach.
It has not happened to me for some years, though. Go figure. Did my
distro do something? Dunno.
Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255
inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
...
So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 19:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <100ieve$1o3d$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67609 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address: > >cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig >eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255 > inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global> > inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> > ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) >... This laptop has an IPv6 link local address. Btw, the GNU/Linux world has been using iproute2 for two decades now. What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say? >So applications thought that IPv6 was available. Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully. Different behavior is a bug. ¹ in the RFC2119 sense -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 19:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m93tqqF8pgcU15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67610 |
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
>>
>> cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig
>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255
>> inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
>> inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
>> ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
>> ...
>
> This laptop has an IPv6 link local address.
I know. That one is automatic.
And also a given global address that I personally wrote.
>
> Btw, the GNU/Linux world has been using iproute2 for two decades now.
I am aware.
> What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some
years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
>
>> So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
>
> Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the
> next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might
> happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully.
>
> Different behavior is a bug.
>
> ¹ in the RFC2119 sense
The gai change makes things go faster, by not trying IPv6 first.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <100irbu$2j9c$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67611 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote: >> What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say? > >I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >years ago, on several computers. > >cer@Isengard:~> ip route >default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 >192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16 >cer@Isengard:~> That is not the IPv6 routing table. >>> So applications thought that IPv6 was available. >> >> Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the >> next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might >> happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully. >> >> Different behavior is a bug. >> >> ¹ in the RFC2119 sense > >The gai change makes things go faster, by not trying IPv6 first. On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 % of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 03:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m94pk5F8pgbU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67612 |
On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
>>
>> I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some
>> years ago, on several computers.
>>
>> cer@Isengard:~> ip route
>> default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
>> 192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
>> cer@Isengard:~>
>
> That is not the IPv6 routing table.
That is all there is.
>
>>>> So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
>>>
>>> Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the
>>> next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might
>>> happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully.
>>>
>>> Different behavior is a bug.
>>>
>>> ¹ in the RFC2119 sense
>>
>> The gai change makes things go faster, by not trying IPv6 first.
>
> On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high
> performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It
> does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 %
> of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway.
It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 08:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <100jqfp$4o04$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67615 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote: >> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say? >>> >>> I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >>> years ago, on several computers. >>> >>> cer@Isengard:~> ip route >>> default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 >>> 192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16 >>> cer@Isengard:~> >> >> That is not the IPv6 routing table. > >That is all there is. The correct command is ip -6 route. You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work. >> On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high >> performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It >> does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 % >> of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway. > >It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower. There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4 on a feature-par network. Of course there are stupid ISPs who that send IPv6 on absurd detours. Those need to be put out of business. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 09:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100k1v0$2o6n2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67621 |
On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote: >>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote: >>>>> What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say? >>>> >>>> I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >>>> years ago, on several computers. >>>> >>>> cer@Isengard:~> ip route >>>> default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 >>>> 192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16 >>>> cer@Isengard:~> >>> >>> That is not the IPv6 routing table. >> >>That is all there is. > > The correct command is ip -6 route. > > You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself > qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work. Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at work. >>> On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high >>> performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It >>> does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 % >>> of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway. >> >>It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower. > > There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4 > on a feature-par network. > > Of course there are stupid ISPs who that send IPv6 on absurd detours. > Those need to be put out of business. Can you provide evidence that such a delay will never happen without broken routes? Or is it up to the implementation that asks for the address? While I don't recall details, I think I've seen and read about this behaviour too. Only for one case with my computers do I remember it being a stale route or assignment. For those back in the past I don't recall much. I was planning not to mention this, given I don't have much to recall, but if you're going to insist on that aggressive approach, judging people, taking a chance at bullying if someone dares to use ifconfig, and at the same time asserting the problem doesn't exist, I don't think I can afford not to comment. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 10:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m95hvdFl2itU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67623 |
On 2025-05-21 10:13, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>>> What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some
>>>>> years ago, on several computers.
>>>>>
>>>>> cer@Isengard:~> ip route
>>>>> default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
>>>>> 192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
>>>>> cer@Isengard:~>
>>>>
>>>> That is not the IPv6 routing table.
>>>
>>> That is all there is.
>>
>> The correct command is ip -6 route.
>>
>> You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
>> qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
>
> Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at
> work.
>
...
> I was planning not to mention this, given I don't have much to recall,
> but if you're going to insist on that aggressive approach, judging
> people, taking a chance at bullying if someone dares to use ifconfig,
> and at the same time asserting the problem doesn't exist, I don't think
> I can afford not to comment.
Thanks.
I could of course have very easily searched for the modern ipv6 routing
command and not ran afoul of his taunts.
I just don't remember commands that I do not use.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 13:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <100kcnb$649q$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #67623 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote: >> You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself >> qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work. > >Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at >work. I just expect people to have a basic education about a topic that they want do discuss in public. That is necessary to have a discussion on eye-level¹. >> There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4 >> on a feature-par network. >> >> Of course there are stupid ISPs who that send IPv6 on absurd detours. >> Those need to be put out of business. > >Can you provide evidence that such a delay will never happen without >broken routes? Or is it up to the implementation that asks for the >address? I dont understand the question. >While I don't recall details, I think I've seen and read about this >behaviour too. Only for one case with my computers do I remember it >being a stale route or assignment. For those back in the past I don't >recall much. We are talking about how a system with both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled behaves on an IPv4-only network. Such a system will not have IPv6 routes going further than the automatically established link-local networks and thus any attempts to use IPv6 will immediately result in the network stack returning a "no route to host" error message. A well behaved application is then expected to try the next IP address it might know for the desired communications partner. This applies to both IPv4 and IPv6. Sadly I don't know at the moment whether this functionality is implemented in the network stack of whether the application is expected to implement the necessary logic. The suggested gai.conf change will, by the way, also only hit at this stage, just pulling IPv4 in front of IPv6. Most IPv6 averse people who are looking for reasons to disable it say that it slows down DNS, and even IF they're right, the gai.conf change doesnt affect this part of commnunication. When I am talking about gai.conf here, I actually mean the in-kernel address label table that is maintained by virtue of the ip addrlabel command. Most modern Linux distributions only have gai.conf as kind of a legacy interface that is not necessarily connected at all to the in-kernel table that the kernel actually uses. I don't know if and which distributions have code that reads gai.conf and uses the contents to initialize the in-kernel table at startup time, since my systems directly interface with ip addrlabel (often via systemd-networkd). I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too lazy to look that up. But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that is beyond passing myths. Greetings Marc ¹ please excuse me if that translation of the German "auf Augenhöhe" was bad or invalid. ² not in the RFC2119 sense -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m95tjnFl2isU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67627 |
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
>>> qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
>>
>> Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at
>> work.
>
> I just expect people to have a basic education about a topic that they
> want do discuss in public. That is necessary to have a discussion on
> eye-level¹.
I expect people asking questions of other users to provide the commands
they want the information from.
Nobody claimed to have an education in the topic. We just commented on a
symptom. You, who claim to be the expert, is who has to ask the proper
questions.
Don't be uppity.
...
> I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for
> AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
> whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
> lazy to look that up.
>
> But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment
> about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
> is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in
the list.
It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide information
is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past. And I know because
the software complained of no route or something.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250521143007.104f7592@rlcp-nb-5642.prosis.group> |
| In reply to | #67628 |
On 21.05.2025 14:00 Carlos E. R. wrote: > It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets > back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first > when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small > delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address > in the list. This is a bug in the application. This also applies vice-versa if no IPv4 connectivity exists (already does by default in certain cellular networks) and the application tries that. > It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide > information is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past. And > I know because the software complained of no route or something. Which is the expected result for that. If that happens again, investigate and file a bug report for the application.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 14:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m96079Fl2isU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67629 |
On 2025-05-21 14:30, Marco Moock wrote:
> On 21.05.2025 14:00 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
>> back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
>> when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
>> delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address
>> in the list.
>
> This is a bug in the application. This also applies vice-versa if no
> IPv4 connectivity exists (already does by default in certain cellular
> networks) and the application tries that.
>
>> It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide
>> information is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past. And
>> I know because the software complained of no route or something.
>
> Which is the expected result for that. If that happens again,
> investigate and file a bug report for the application.
We investigated, and was told to adjust gai.conf.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web