From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4357 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2014 18:19:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4243 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jun 2014 18:19:15 -0000 From: "fweimer at redhat dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/11469] No IPv6 option in glibc Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:19:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: fweimer at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: security- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: flagtypes.name Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg02276.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11469 Florian Weimer changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |security- --- Comment #2 from martin barrowcliff --- 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.