On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 15.07.2013 16:44, schrieb Michal Schmidt: > > On 07/13/2013 01:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> please take a look at this > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982740#c12 > >> > >> what do we do in the future to disable ipv6 entirely > >> and why is "ipv6.disable=1" as kernel param at least > >> with 3.10.0-1.fc20.x86_64 on F19? > > > > Back in 2011 the preferred kernel parameter to do that was "ipv6.disable_ipv6=1": > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kernel/2011-June/003106.html > > I assume it's still true today. > > > > "ipv6.disable=1" should still work though. I still see it handled net/ipv6/af_inet6.c. > > > > In the linked Bugzilla comment you mentioned "ipv6disable=1" (without a dot). Did this ever work? I think it's a typo > > thanks for your feedback, yes this was a typo > > however, i removed it over the weekend and disabled ipv6 with sysctl > software like ntpd, smbd still insists in listening on ipv6 sockets > and the maintainers of the packages says this inconsistent behavior > is fine It is, it's the task of the kernel to refuse to create ipv6 sockets if ipv6 is disabled, certainly not that of the software to find the platform specific way of caring if ipv6 is enabled or not. Open a bug against the kernel if you think this is really an issue (I do not see what's the issue if ipv6 really is disabled those sockets are just harmless and will never be used). Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
