Re: Anita much slower? (IPv6 use is too aggressive)

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Fri, 31 Jan 2025 13:42:18 -0800
    From:        "Greg A. Woods" <woods%planix.ca@localhost>
    Message-ID:  <m1tdymI-00Mo5zC@more.local>

  | One should only have to use IPv6 if one really has to use IPv6!

I disagree, IPv6 is a much better protocol in general (and would be
even better if used properly as it was designed, which it isn't always).
And that's not just because of having more addresses, though that in
itself is a huge win, as it allows escape from the abomination that is NAT.

  | I think forcing IPv6 attempts when it might not work, and when it is not
  | necessary, is always wrong.

Again, I disagree, finding out that something is not correctly configured,
so it can get fixed, is the only way that we ever get things fixed, if the
issues just get "worked around" then nothing ever truly improves.

I've been using IPv6 for years - for remote systems with advertised IPv6
addresses it just works - just as reliably as IPv4 ever did, if not better.
(Years ago it was sometimes slower, as there were less routes, and more
v6 over tunnels than anyone would want, but most of that is fixed now).

But, I have a properly configured local IPv6 setup, and my ISP has
properly working IPv6 (and they give me public IPv6 addresses to use,
but certainly nothing like that for IPv4).

  | (I now have IPv6 working so I can't test such things easily any more.)

Good, that was exactly the right solution to whatever problem you
previously had which has biased your opinions - others should follow
your example and fix their IPv6 configs, or complain to their ISP
or hosting provider and get things fixed.

My only current problem is that my local "modem" (it isn't, but you
know what I mean) forgets its state completely if it suffers a power
loss, after which it gets me a new IPv6 prefix from the ISP (no idea
why they don't just give the same one as last time) and advertises
that, but never deprecates the no longer working old prefix (as it
has no memory that such a thing ever existed).   I suspect that's
just because it is rather cheap...  (Of course it gets a new IPv4
addr as well, but that's only visible outside my network, via the
evil that is NAT, so never directly affects anything internal.)

kre