[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Firefox 3 Beta 2 in Rawhide



drago01 wrote:
> Andrew Farris wrote:
>> drago01 wrote:
>>  
>>> On Dec 23, 2007 1:43 AM, Chuck Anderson <cra wpi edu> wrote:
>>> the problem is that it does not work with some ISP .. and thats not
>>> something that we can fix that easily (well or we can try to add some
>>> fallback logic)
>>>     
>>
>> Is it perhaps 'prefering' IPv6 and you've configured an IPv6 address
>> locally
>> while your ISP won't respond properly to IPv6 -> IPv4 nat
>> translation?  I'd
>> suggest making sure your local network configuration has IPv6 disabled
>> and see
>> if that firefox now does not care whether IPv6 is not disabled.
>>
>> If your ISP misbehaves, try not letting IPv6 traffic out of your
>> machine (don't
>> configure an address for the family).  The application should not
>> choose to try
>> and generate IPv6 traffic if it is not told you have IPv6 connectivity.
>>
>>   
> well my ISP is connected to a wireless router and I got the
> configuration over dhcp from the router. There seems to be indeed a ipv6
> adress assigned to the interface in question (dunno why maybe because
> the router does support ipv6 but the ISP does not).
> nevertheless if ipv6 does not work it should atleast fall back to ipv4.
> I know how to deal with this but I doubt that all  other users affected
> will be able to deal with it. And a webbrowser _must_ work out of the
> box .. else they cannot even try to google for a solution etc.

I agree that the primary browser *should just work*.  But I do not think the
right path is to go and disable IPv6 entirely by default (in a hidden option)...
the longer this type of ad hoc 'fix' for ISPs that are not yet making the
conversion the longer the entire internet will suffer with it.

The correct fix is to make firefox fallback on IPv4 if an IPv6 address fails
(and yes I know that is more work).  In the meantime if it has an option to
'prefer IPv4' even if IPv6 is configured that might be fine, but I really don't
think disabling it is a good option.

We still probably should not be enabling the IPv6 address unless requested by
the users (for which there is a very obvious UI option already right in the
network configuration), but that is a broader discussion that has happened a few
times before.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul gmail com> <ajfarris gmail com>
 gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]