IPv6 and localhost
an037-ooai8 at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 30 19:52:08 UTC 2009
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> wrote:
> "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang rupprecht+gnus200901 gmail com>
>> Allen Kistler <an037-ooai8 at yahoo.com> writes:
>>> So the question really is: Is there a reason localhost is not both
>>> the IPv4 loopback and the IPv6 loopback (*other* than hiding some bugs
>>> in some programs)? Or should Fedora (and eventually Red Hat) change
>>> the default /etc/hosts shipped/created with anaconda?
>> One of the first things I do on an install is get rid of the lame
>> distribution /etc/hosts file. I've done this since fc4 and fedora,
>> just like netbsd and openbsd has no need for the silly targeted
>> localhost names. The other silly thing is the "localhost.localdomain"
>> entry coming first. Really, what is that about??? "localhost" has
>> worked just fine for over 2 decades. Software understands it. What
>> advantage is there to rocking the boat?
> Using the hosts file for the local name and the names of a few useful hosts is
> protection against some fascist ISP deciding to block or DNAT all DNS queries to
> the ISP servers. So they can block lookup of sites they deem harmful.
I'm not certain I follow how the ISP gets involved with the definition
of localhost in /etc/hosts, but I haven't seen any reason not to call
the lack of an IPv6 definition for localhost (specifically not
"localhost6") a bug and to try to get it fixed.
My inclination is to file a bug against the F11 alpha when it comes out
next week, since it's anaconda that creates the default file content. I
expect some resistance to change, but I can only hope that BZ doesn't
become the venue of a debate on it, though.
More information about the users