-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2016-09-10 a las 15:05 +0200, Per Jessen escribió:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Right, my provider does not offer IPv6 to normal clients. Yes, perhaps I could get a tunnel of something from a third party, but I do not see fair doing my 300mbps through that. Lastly I have a problem with a WiFi point and the main router conflicting on who handles loacal IPv6 addresses, but I haven't bothered yet because there is none to handle.
I thought you also had a problem where your provider did give you IPv6, but it didn't work?
No, they don't.
The main problem I think people have that forces them to disable IPv6 on their installs is "slow network", or failed connections. I think the DNS tells them of a site address as an IPv6, and of course, they can not connect.
Unless they have an IPv6 route, the resolver will give preference to IPv4. I don't know how that works, but unless the resolver does that, everyone trying to access "google.com" (or any other dual-stack site) would have a problem 50% of the time.
No, the resolver is not that clever. I have seen zypper on ocassion trying an IPv6 mirror and responding "no route", when there are other addresses on IPv4.
Instead, I configured somewhere (I forgot the file name) to say give IPv4 preference. Ah, /etc/gai.conf.
Yes, but it isn't necessary.
Things work after I changed it...
A better one would be to convince the name solver to ignore all IPv6 answers.
ISTR you bringing this up last time too, but it really cannot be a problem. Wasn't this because you actually had an IPv6 route, but no connectivity?
No, I don't think so. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlfUHsUACgkQja8UbcUWM1zR5QEAgiu7zjQ5iveYqPOqPnY5e9WG 114kYNW7dUY50Fys0vAA/1wsCN5fl4vZOHP3K+gpzaTDnV4TWisjrzpTFlW+WN6g =Tu2L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----