> * before A DNS lookup
> (it might be that the implementation of RFC3484 as described
>in the libc6 change "2006-05-18 David Woodhouse" as found in
>/usr/share/doc/libc6/changelog.gz might have solved this particular
>problem)
Partly. It fixed the issue of clients trying to
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Sure. While we're at it, can we also have a question "enable UTF-8"? Oh,
We already do. We ask which locale to select, and anything that tries for
UTF-8 in a non-UTF-8 locale better know what it is doing (it is often
correct do to it, but you need to
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:41:58AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Can we have a "enable IPV6 yes/no" question in the installer? That fixes all
> problems in one go. Then tweak the system's defaults for the answer.
Sure. While we're at it, can we also have a question "enable UTF-8"? O
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> The release goal includes BTW all that strange things. Up to now, IPv6
> crept somehow into Debian, without anyone coordinating. As these days,
Well, there has been a somewhat coordinated effort a couple of years
ago, with a webapp tracking the stat
* Tomas Pospisek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070731 00:54]:
> IPv6 is set as a release goal.
>
> Is having Debian CDs work out of the box for the average user plugging
> into an everyday ISP also a release goal?
That's not a release goal, but a necessarity.
The release goal includes BTW all that stran
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070730 22:55]:
> IPv6 enabled by default in a IPv4-only environment is a PitA. And this
> is probably impossible to fix.
We could (by default / sensible probing / ...) blacklist the
ipv6-module. I'm though not sure if this is the right thing to do.
Cheers,
Andi
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 07:52:47PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> * ask the user at install time whether he wants IPv6 on
Without arguing for or against ipv6, asking user at install
time is the worst solution.
1) it adds a extra step in installer for everyone
2) most endusers won't understand the
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> before A is the recommended way of resolving a domain name. Not
> doing so would make us not RFC-compliant, which is not the way to go
> IMO.
Could this ipv6 primer be taken to a more appropriate list, please? -devel,
perhap
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:26:20AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> I would add only one point to Tomas Pospisek's excellent
> analysis. Without diligent precautions, IPv6 is horribly
> insecure. You thought your firewall protected you, but
> now "apt-get dist-upgrade" will open your protected apps
> to
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 07:52:47PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> * Software that binds to the first socket found
> Then there's software that binds to the first port it gets and is
> difficult to teach not to do so. [2]
There is nothing like a "first socket". Software either binds to any
addr
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> In all other cases, your machine should do the resolving, try to
> connect, _immediately_ get a "no route to host", and fall back to v4. I
> don't see the problem?
Issues imposed by high latency, high packet loss or slow DNS s
Zobel-Helas who redirected me here.
>
> My experience with IPv6 in Debian is foremost that it's a pita.
>
> Debian enables IPv6 by default.
>
> * before A DNS lookup
>
> Long time ago I was seeing the behaveour described in [0][1] with
> Debian. Since then I twe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The typical problem, which is what Tomas was pointing at with
>request being done before A requests, is that if the ipv6 module is
>loaded and you are in a ipv4-only environment, you still get a link
>local ipv6 address, and applications (glibc, actually) think (quit
[I move this to the ipv6 list, I think this has little to do with
the -release list]
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:29:37AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
> I was trying to say that I had been bitten by the "libc's name resolver
> does by default an name lookup before it does an A lookup" before
gt; and wrote to Martin Zobel-Helas who redirected me here.
>
> My experience with IPv6 in Debian is foremost that it's a pita.
>
> Debian enables IPv6 by default.
>
> * before A DNS lookup
This is pretty standard behavior, really. I haven't seen any real
pro
Hi,
this thread is completely off topic on -release, please take it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:53:06PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:33:10PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I've never actually had a problem on ipv4-only hosts. It would be nice
> > if you could describe your probl
here.
My experience with IPv6 in Debian is foremost that it's a pita.
Debian enables IPv6 by default.
* before A DNS lookup
[...]
* Software that binds to the first socket found
[...]
Both of those problems seem to be problems in specific pieces of
software. I suggest you file bu
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:53:06PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:33:10PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I've never actually had a problem on ipv4-only hosts. It would be nice
> > if you could describe your problems in more detail.
>
> The typical pro
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:33:10PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never actually had a problem on ipv4-only hosts. It would be nice
> if you could describe your problems in more detail.
The typical problem, which is what Tomas was pointing at with
request being done bef
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:23:29PM +0100, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > * The cost of disabling IPv6
> >
> > Once the kernel has loaded the ipv6 module, one can not get it rmmod'ed
> > (or not easily - I have not figured out how to do this remotely on a
> > hosted server). Whi
Zobel-Helas who redirected me here.
>
> My experience with IPv6 in Debian is foremost that it's a pita.
>
> Debian enables IPv6 by default.
>
> * before A DNS lookup
[...]
> * Software that binds to the first socket found
[...]
Both of those problems seem to be problems
This one time, at band camp, Tomas Pospisek said:
> Hallo Release Team,
>
> I've read in the release goals:
>
> >RELEASE GOALS
> >=
> >
> >* full IPv6 support
> > Advocate: Martin Zobel-Helas
>
> and wrote to Martin Zobel-Helas wh
I would add only one point to Tomas Pospisek's excellent
analysis. Without diligent precautions, IPv6 is horribly
insecure. You thought your firewall protected you, but
now "apt-get dist-upgrade" will open your protected apps
to the outside world.
By all means make IPv6 easy to use if you wish,
Hallo Release Team,
I've read in the release goals:
RELEASE GOALS
=
* full IPv6 support
Advocate: Martin Zobel-Helas
and wrote to Martin Zobel-Helas who redirected me here.
My experience with IPv6 in Debian is foremost that it's a pita.
Debian enables IPv6 by defaul
25 matches
Mail list logo
