> There are excellent reasons why IPv6 is preferred to IPv4 by > default, and this is not going to change.
I'm very interested in this! What are the reasons? (The only serious argument I've heard boils down to: some IPv4 setups are broken by NAT and icky firewalls, and IPv6 isn't. One non-serious argument I've heard is: if IPv6 is not preferred then the v6 network will not get exercised.) Unfortunately the "prefer IPv6" default has forced retraction (i.e., un-deployment) of IPv6 at a number of sites that I'm aware of. The story is simple: - enable IPv6: radvd, etc. - complaints that access to some IPv6-enabled host has become extremely slow or unreliable, across many local hosts. (E.g., updating from http://ftp.ie.debian.org) - cause is nonlocal IPv6 problems; cannot be locally addressed - infeasible to fiddle conf files on all potentially affected hosts - no choice: disable IPv6 If the default were to prefer IPv4, this would not happen. Enabling IPv6 would never cause such disruptions. This would make IPv6 deployment much easier. So, why do we insist upon default settings that make IPv6 deployment difficult? --Barak. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
