nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: Matthew Walster <matthew () walster org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 15:46:15 +0100
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, 13:03 Jens Link, <lists () quux de> wrote:
I ran into this some time ago with deb.debian.org on an IPv6 only Debian VM with a locally installed resolver. I opened a ticket which was closed in record time: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961296 After some ranting and shouting it now works
I'm going to post the relevant message here:
Sometimes I wonder why I report bugs.. But your answer was the answer I was expecting. Thanks for noting. So I can summarize this as "The Debian Project doesn't care if IPv6 is
working"? Jens, you went into that ticket looking for a fight, in a place staffed by largely unpaid volunteers, choosing to belittle their efforts and then attempting to shame them into action. You even chose to mark the bug severity higher than the default, despite you having chosen that mirror for your install. https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities Marco explained to you that the mirror network has plenty of selections to make, but you choose to make a fuss about one supported option not working to a standard the rest of the community pretty much agrees is nowhere near attainable at this time. Using netselect https://packages.debian.org/stable/net/netselect to choose a reachable mirror with the lowest latency would have easily mitigated this issue for you. DNS64 and NAT64 are going to be with us for a very long time, and if you refuse to support IPv4 even through a translation layer then it is clear you are acting against the interests of further IPv6 adoption by associating IPv6 issues with zealotry. The apathy sometimes associated with IPv6 support today is because of this perceived high effort low reward nature of confrontation. I would strongly advise you apologise to Marco for your grandstanding, and adopt a more constructive way of furthering your ideology. The NANOG code of conduct clearly states: https://www.nanog.org/about/code-conduct/
In the spirit of mutual respect and collaboration, NANOG does not
tolerate any unwelcome behavior, including but not limited to:
* Aggressively pushing your own services, products, or causes. [...]
Please join the rest of us in advocating for IPv6 adoption, rather than the current bullying tactics you seem to be choosing that wins the battle and loses the war. We are all friends* here. You can be a great asset in this effort we should all seek. M *FSVO friends, obvs.
Current thread:
- IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Jens Link (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Lukas Tribus (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Matthew Walster (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Jens Link (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Job Snijders via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's tim () pelican org (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Tom Hill (Oct 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's David Conrad (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Christopher Morrow (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 22)