Hi Erik,
On 11-05-01 01:09 AM, Erik Andersen wrote:
> o One thing I just discovered is that a maverick VM that only has an IPv6
> only
>connection (and even an IPv6 mirror or apt package cache configured) will
>not detect the natty upgrade through the update manager. If you run
>chec
Hi Erik,
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Erik Andersen wrote:
> Hi,
> I've run IPv6 on my local network and through a IPv6inIPv4 tunnel for a
> while. Here's what I would bring up if I were at UDS on the subject of IPv6 on
> Ubuntu:
Thanks for bringing up your concerns. If you think of further
Hi,
I've run IPv6 on my local network and through a IPv6inIPv4 tunnel for a
while. Here's what I would bring up if I were at UDS on the subject of IPv6 on
Ubuntu:
o One thing I just discovered is that a maverick VM that only has an IPv6 only
connection (and even an IPv6 mirror or apt packag
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre schreef op za 30-04-2011 om 14:18 [-0400]:
> Well, I didn't mention this precisely because the mirrors and other
> services aren't IPv6 ready,
Some mirrors are IPv6-ready, e.g. the ones operated by BIT
(nl.archive.ubuntu.com aka ubuntuarchive.bit.nl), BelNet (ftp.belnet.be
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Jan Claeys wrote:
> Etienne Goyer schreef op ma 18-04-2011 om 17:03 [-0400]:
>> Any other major roadblock beside the above? I am going to sift
>> through the bugs tagged ipv6 on Launchpad, but if there's anything
>> obvious I missed, please let me know.
>>
>> Fina
Etienne Goyer schreef op ma 18-04-2011 om 17:03 [-0400]:
> Any other major roadblock beside the above? I am going to sift
> through the bugs tagged ipv6 on Launchpad, but if there's anything
> obvious I missed, please let me know.
>
> Finally, a question to consider is whether we want to address
Scott Kitterman [2011-04-19 12:03 -0400]:
> What's the delay caused to get an IPv4 address when it tries IPv6 first and
> fails?
When using my router's name server (which suffers from this bug), DNS
resolution generally takes some 20 seconds. In other words, pretty
much unacceptable for any kind
Hello all,
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre [2011-04-19 9:50 -0400]:
> We used to see a few issues related to broken routers blocking on
> DNS requests. Note sure if there's really still a lot of those, but I
> guess it's something to keep in mind: requests could block and
> turn into a big anno
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 09:50:27 AM Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
>> For Oneiric, my plan is to change that default for new interfaces to
>> Automatic IPv6 and not requiring IPv4 or IPv6 to bring up interfaces,
>> which should make alm
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 09:50:27 AM Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
> For Oneiric, my plan is to change that default for new interfaces to
> Automatic IPv6 and not requiring IPv4 or IPv6 to bring up interfaces,
> which should make almost everyone happy.
What's the delay caused to get an IPv4 add
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Etienne Goyer
wrote:
[...]
> - NetworkManager: It used to be that NetworkManager insisted upon
> getting an IPv4 address, but Matt Trudel just marked bug #307598 as
> fixed two weeks ago. Presumably, NM now work fine in IPv6-only network,
> but I have not tested y
Excerpts from Etienne Goyer's message of Mon Apr 18 14:03:12 -0700 2011:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have been having one-on-one conversation in the past few weeks with a
> number of people around the question of IPv6 in Ubuntu. With the
> upcoming IPv4 armageddon, I think it is quite pressing that w
Hello everyone,
I have been having one-on-one conversation in the past few weeks with a
number of people around the question of IPv6 in Ubuntu. With the
upcoming IPv4 armageddon, I think it is quite pressing that we make sure
that we have good end-to-end IPv6 support in Ubuntu. I've been asked t
13 matches
Mail list logo
