Rob wrote: > Rick Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> Allen Kistler <[email protected]> wrote: >>> For example, http://www.ntp.org. >>> NTP.org has a perfectly good IPv4 site, but the IPv6 site doesn't >>> answer to SYNs. I have no problem with other IPv6 sites, but maybe >>> I'll find some in the future. >>> Since RFC-compliant behavior is to try the IPv6 address first, I >>> have to timeout on every page element before switching to IPv4. >>> I was wondering what the options are to deal with the situation. I >>> don't have control of the ntp.org DNS domain (or any other broken >>> domains I might find). Keeping a list in iptables for special >>> behaviors for specific IPv6 addresses really isn't attractive. >>> As more sites put up IPv6 versions, I expect there to be a lot of >>> brokenness that won't be a high priority to fix as long as 99% of >>> everybody is still on IPv4. What's the most manageable way to deal >>> with this? >> I don't know about the general question, but there are likely folks in >> comp.protocols.time.ntp who know about the www.ntp.org site and its >> IPv6 status, so lets redirect the specific issue there. (I've set the >> Followup-to: header on this post to that end) > > I know that it is not what the RFC says, but I think that when you > want usable dual-stack behaviour you need to give IPv4 preference > for now (use IPv6 only when no IPv4 record is available or connection > fails). >
No, that's not true. Too many applications would fail if that happened. If you want to use IPv6 and the path exists to support access via IPv6 it will work. Danny -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
