1 |
Dear colleagues, |
2 |
|
3 |
or better said former and not-yet colleagues, I was the administrator of |
4 |
rsync17.de back in 2003 before the use of IPv6 in portage rsync was |
5 |
eliminated by the change to sync twice to the same server (once for |
6 |
timestamp, once for the actual sync), which moved the name resolving |
7 |
from rsync to the portage code (which was IPv4-only). |
8 |
|
9 |
After 2.5 years and due to the help of many people (including several |
10 |
Gentoo gurus^Wdevelopers) the necessary code has finally been added to |
11 |
portage and is now available in >=sys-apps/portage-2.1.1_pre3-r1. See |
12 |
the bug for yourself, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37124 . |
13 |
|
14 |
The reason I'm writing this mail is that in 2004 all AAAA records were |
15 |
pulled from the rotations (since it wasn't supported by portage anyway). |
16 |
What about adding IPv6 records to the rotation again (maybe no more than |
17 |
three per hostname to allow it to fail gracefully in the unexpected case |
18 |
that an IPv4-only box chooses IPv6 for sync)? |
19 |
|
20 |
I'm standing by with a fast machine on native GE to chime in if needed. |
21 |
Who here would be able to provide _decent_ (that means no crappy |
22 |
tunnelbrokers like HE.net, no transcontinental tunnels and IMHO no 6to4, |
23 |
but a decent native link or low-latency tunnel with enough available |
24 |
bandwidth) IPv6-enabled mirror for the rotations? Please remember that |
25 |
if this is about pushing IPv6 usage having mirrors with overall bad |
26 |
connection is actually the worst thing to do. |
27 |
|
28 |
Any opinions? |
29 |
|
30 |
Regards, |
31 |
Bernhard |
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-mirrors@g.o mailing list |