Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 18:03:18 +0200 From: Melvyn Sopacua <freebsd-stable@webteckies.org> To: Mark.Andrews@isc.org Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 Resolver (or: Slow rendering of Webpages using Konqueror) Message-ID: <200305021803.18757.freebsd-stable@webteckies.org> In-Reply-To: <200305021105.h42B5p1G012593@drugs.dv.isc.org> References: <200305021105.h42B5p1G012593@drugs.dv.isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 02 May 2003 13:05, Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote: > > On Friday 02 May 2003 04:30, Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote: [ ... ] > > > > > > This is under application control. The newer API's also > > > have flags to say look at what address families are configured > > > and only return addresses in this family. Note you may still > > > want to make queries for the other family so you stop searching > > > when either address is found. > > > > So why not patch the libc (libisc/libresolv) functions, that they return > > a valid NOERROR/NOTIMP response for any AF_INET6 lookups without actually > > making these requests? For instance when -DDISABLE_IPV6 is set? > > > > This could easily be enforced via a switch in /etc/make.conf during make > > buildworld/buildkernel, which would then result in a 100% ipv4 node. > > Bad Idea. Applications lookup IPv6 addresses for reasons > other than making connection. Other than verification of ns records, or perhaps log analyzers, can you be more specific? A systems administrator may want to disable anything IPv6 related, simply because he hasn't farmiliarized himself, with the security implications this might have - which is a very valid reason IMHO. > > Additionally this changes the mindset from 'enabling ipv6' to 'disabling > > it', > > > > rather than giving the illusion, that only enabling ipv6 will do anything > > ipv6 related. > > > > Applications that absolutely want to resolv Ipv6 for whatever reason, can > > always implement their own resolver. > > What are you smoking. Zware Van Nelle Export. > This is one of the most ridiculous > ideas I've heard in a long while. Let's keep the flaming part to a minimum. I sent an email to DoubleClick regarding the issue, and my support contact has forwarded the email to the Networking guys and will follow up on it (and if he doesn't I will). So essentially, we're working on the same end of the problem. My _personal_ opinion, is that it's just plain dumb, that these 'loadbalancing cowboys' can tie up system resources for such a lengthly period of time and a systems' administrator can do nothing about it, but patch applications. Imagine the implications, when your mailserver is presented with a bunch of 'MAIL FROM: foo@doubleclick.net'... > -- > Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org -- Best regards, Melvyn Sopacua
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305021803.18757.freebsd-stable>