[Bug libc/11469] New: No IPv6 option in glibc

[Bug libc/11469] New: No IPv6 option in glibc

[martinbarrowcliff at gmail dot com]

This is about the resolver lib.
This is definitely a design error but lets call it a bug for now.
The resolver libs infuse IPv6 code as part of every build. Why so?
Since when did Microsoft influence open source code this way?
I looked at every glibc from the beginning, and this is bad, ugly code.
Those hacks are long overdue for re-write and should not be
considered for inclusion. A clean re-write from the start is needed.
IPv6 should still be an option, but not forced, as the libs try to do.
I am old and tired, but if someone else cannot fix that mess, I will.
I am growing weary of disabling all those hacks every time I build a OS.

-- 
           Summary: No IPv6 option in glibc
           Product: glibc
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libc
        AssignedTo: drepper at redhat dot com
        ReportedBy: martinbarrowcliff at gmail dot com
                CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
 GCC build triplet: any
  GCC host triplet: any
GCC target triplet: any


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11469

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/11469] No IPv6 option in glibc

[drepper at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2010-04-05 18:30 -------
IPv6 is needed.  It's trivial to disable any use of it so there is no need at
all to do anything in glibc.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11469

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/11469] No IPv6 option in glibc

[fweimer at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11469

Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |security-

--- Comment #2 from martin barrowcliff <martinbarrowcliff at gmail dot com> ---
Subject: Re:  No IPv6 option in glibc

drepper at redhat dot com wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2010-04-05 18:30 -------
> IPv6 is needed.  It's trivial to disable any use of it so there is no need at
> all to do anything in glibc.
>
>   
I appreciate your fast reply, and certainly respect your opinion, but 
the issue extends
far beyond glibs. It is viral code.
Indeed, a few people do need ipV6 for corporate networks, however 
Internet use is
very low, and there is doubt if that protocol will ever be accepted 
mainstream.

It is NOT trivial to disable ipv6,  and you of all people should know that.
It is stuck in every linux dist because they all use that same resolver 
library.
Many applications are built with IPv6 enabled if the code is available 
in the libs.
Some have options to disable, some don't. But it is NEVER a requirement.
Being able to choose to enable it should be an option, and not forced on 
the builder.
I certainly didn't mean to insult your code or intelligence.  We are 
still friends, please.

I never had a ipv6 network. Never will.
I have run authoritative DNS servers and resolvers on ipv4 and set them 
to ignore
AAAA requests because I got a lot of that junk and it is just noise if 
you don't need it.
I have methodically disabled all the IPv6 resolver lib functions in my 
hand built OS and I can
assure you;  ipv6 is NOT needed by me, or by any packages I have ever 
built.
I also have considerably faster local networking because of my hacks.
So saying ipv6 is needed does not address this issue properly.
Having read every line of that code, I know the resolver libs are way 
old and need to
be rewritten with an option for IPv6.
I am 60 yrs old but don't for a minute think I can't fix this issue to 
the gratitude
of millions.  But you could do it easier. The ipv6 issue IS a problem 
for ipv4 networks.

Best regards,

Marty B.



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.