>  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


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Reply via email to