| 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 |
Archives