Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org>: > On 2023/10/06 13:08, Marco via mailop wrote: > > Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Bjørn Bürger via mailop <mailop@mailop.org>: > > > > > 15 yrs ago I would have agreed to Wietse Venemas view, but > > > nowadays this kind of "solution" is just adding confusion and > > > makes debugging harder for everyone, unfortunately. > > > > And sadly it creates a comfortable solution for admins of > > non-functional networks instead of fixing stuff. > > As does the standard mechanism used in browers for dealing with the > same type of situation.
Although they try IPv6 first and don't do a "protocol balancing", at least I haven't experienced that yet. > RFC 8305 9.3 has a suggested approach to dealing with this. | The algorithm proceeds as follows: if a positive AAAA response (a | response with at least one valid AAAA record) is received first, the | first IPv6 connection attempt is immediately started. If a positive | A response is received first due to reordering, the client SHOULD | wait a short time for the AAAA response to ensure that preference is | given to IPv6 (it is common for the AAAA response to follow the A | response by a few milliseconds). For me that read more like "try IPv6 first and fallback to IPv4 quick if IPv6 doesn't work". _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
