From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 06:55:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E336616A4EE for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from lug.org.uk (xinit.lug.org.uk [195.92.253.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B40E43D2F for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:55:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andy@strugglers.net) Received: from andy by lug.org.uk with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 1B3Fyz-0008Mh-00 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:55:53 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:55:53 +0000 From: Andy Smith To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040316145553.GB26332@lug.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <255A839665EA24408EB27A6AAE15518EAC1B@europa.ad.hartbrothers.com> <200403161427.i2GERR0R058377@whizzo.transsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200403161427.i2GERR0R058377@whizzo.transsys.com> X-Uptime: 96 days X-URL: http://www.strugglers.net/~andy/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: ftp.perl.org strangeness X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:55:55 -0000 On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:27:27AM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > Wouldn't it be nice to be able to configure the default behavior of > the resolver to not query AAAA records first, before looking for A > records? Just because my host is capable of doing IPv6 doesn't mean > I prefer using it over IPv4. Especially since it's almost certain to > be a lower performance path traversing various tunnels, with smaller > MTUs, etc. But since I am guessing almost everyone that has IPv6 also has IPv4[1], wouldn't that mean that IPv6 hardly ever gets used/tested? If things had been as you suggest then this problem may never have been noticed. Then if any organisation were ever to have a "flag day" for IPv6 it would suddenly be incredibly painful as all apps in use throughout that organisation suddenly get affected by problems like this that have lain dormant. Isn't it better that little quirks like this are found out in advance whenever anyone starts playing with IPv6? If you don't want to be part of the testing of IPv6, you could just not use IPv6, right..? -- Andy Smith [1] Yes I am aware that there are plenty of networks that only have IPv6, but for the purposes of actual working production systems I think they will be in a minority compared to those that also have IPv4. By definition this thread is about public resources that have to be available by both IPv4 *and* IPv6.