# Fedora 11



## arcticsilver (Aug 6, 2009)

I was wondering how to disable IPV6 on Fedora 11 because of slow connection speeds and random drops.  Thanks in advance for the help guys.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 6, 2009)

I'm not sure if IPv6 would be causing this, unless your connection/ISP supports IPv6 and that service is slow.

I think what you should look for is whether or not you're running at the maximum speed your link can offer, and whether you're running half or full-duplex. Assuming this is wired, that would typically be 100mbps, full-duplex. Normally, this is auto-negotiated, but in some rare cases, the NIC is unable to determine which speed to connect at and falls back to 10mbps, half-duplex. You can check what mode you're currently running by typing _ifconfig_ in a command prompt and looking for your NIC (eth0 by default for wired). It should look like this (replace re0 with eth0):


----------



## arcticsilver (Aug 6, 2009)

I am running at 100mB full duplex and am using comcast as my isp.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 6, 2009)

Actually, I'm finding lots of complaints about Fedora 11 being slow and iffy because of IPv6, but not many instructions on how to disable it or work around it.

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1229006&postcount=7 - #7 post of this thread: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=223874

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?p=1243579

http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-disable-ipv6-on-fedora-linux-why/


----------



## arcticsilver (Aug 6, 2009)

If modprobe.conf is not shown should I creat the file?


----------



## arcticsilver (Aug 6, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Actually, I'm finding lots of complaints about Fedora 11 being slow and iffy because of IPv6, but not many instructions on how to disable it or work around it.
> 
> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1229006&postcount=7 - #7 post of this thread: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=223874
> 
> ...



I used the last link you gave me.  I made the modprobe.conf file in /etc/modprobe.d/.  I had to reboot my computer for the effects to take.  Web pages load up quicker now and no more hostname/address is unreadchable.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 6, 2009)

Huh, that's certainly interesting. Leave it to distribution-specific bugs.


----------



## Pi (Aug 8, 2009)

Fedora being a giant piece of shit?! say it ain't so!!!!!!


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 8, 2009)

If Fedora 11 is using a fairly recent kernel like Ubuntu, then IPv6 is compiled into the Kernel itself.  Normally this can be disabled by adding "ipv6.disable=1" to the kernel boot options in the grub menu, but there is a bug that seems to prevent it from working until kernel 2.6.29 (I think they might have fixed it in one of the later 2.6.28-xx revisions, but can't remember which one).

So, if your kernel doesn't support the boot option, then you might want to instead use another trick.  If you find the use the net to be predominately laggy when browsing, you can turn off IPv6 in Firefox itself.  Go to the address bar and type "aboug:config", then filter for ipv6.  There will only be few things left in the list, one of which is "network.dns.disableIPv6" - double-click on this to change it to false and restart firefox.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2009)

That seems an awfully silly thing to build into the kernel considering the rate of adoption of IPv6. I'd think keeping it as a module would be a lot more efficient at this stage in the game, but then again, I'm not a kernel developer or maintainer, so...


----------



## Pi (Aug 8, 2009)

The linux networking stack is an embarrassment and a joke when it comes to ipv6 adoption. The BSDs do it right; there's no separate tool for firewalling v6, they take similar code paths through the kernel, ipsec (which is a required part of the v6 standard) is well-integrated.

If you're running v6 I strongly suggest looking into one of the BSDs, or Debian kFreeBSD.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> That seems an awfully silly thing to build into the kernel considering the rate of adoption of IPv6. I'd think keeping it as a module would be a lot more efficient at this stage in the game, but then again, I'm not a kernel developer or maintainer, so...



lolwut?

What rate of adoption? The current August measurement of world networks supporting IPv6 is 4.9%, and most of them are in Europe or Asia.  Since 1996, that's all that's happened.  Though I don't dispute that it will eventually be the primary protocol of the Internet, we are a long, long ways off from it being mainstream.  

Working in the industry, I can tell you exactly way - cost.  To suppose IPv6 from one end of the network to the other requires replacing the majority of existing network hardware.  It's a cost most business and universities are simply not willing to undertake just because someone says "Oh, but it's newer standard."  IPv6 adoption will come gradually as companies slowly upgrade and replace hardware that goes EOL.  Even though, it's not until everything is ready, end-to-end, that plans can be made to begin migrating services and primary network functions to it. 

My own workplace at UWO is pretty cutting edge, and we have a generous IT budget, but it will still be 7 to 12 years before we support it end to end at the hardware level.  The other factor though is the IT people themselves.  In the NOC, I'm actually the youngest member of the team, with the oldest of them being near retirement age.  I can pretty much gaurentee that none of them will want to pursue IPv6 while they're still employeed, and the migration to it will be left up to my generation.

Long story short, IPv6 is along ways off from becoming "the norm".  Turning it off won't affect anything right now, and even 5 years from now, so don't worry about it.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> lolwut?
> 
> What rate of adoption?



My point. XD Integrating support into the kernel now is adding unnecessary bloat when virtually nobody is going to be using it and those that can can just compile/load the module, or better yet, if they find it that necessary, recompile the kernel with support built-in.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> My point. XD Integrating support into the kernel now is adding unnecessary bloat when virtually nobody is going to be using it and those that can can just compile/load the module, or better yet, if they find it that necessary, recompile the kernel with support built-in.



Oi... totally misread your comment.  That'll teach me to write replies while trying to work on a system and hold a conversation at the same time. But yeah - completely unnecessary bloat right now.  IPv6 can also cause issues on a network that doesn't support it when an OS assumes that IPv6 should be given a higher priority than IPv4.  

We had a situation crop up in RezNet where some guy's Vista box had DHCP and DNS server abilities enabled, and it was doing this on IPv6.  Every other Vista box in the local VLAN then began to assume it was a higher athority for those services than the actual IPv4 ones, and took it's address hand-outs instead.  Since we don't support IPv6, one by one, dozens of machines lost network connectivity as a result.  That was one of the first things we experienced with Vista when it came out... had us SO looking forward to all the other Vista issues. >_<


----------



## Pi (Aug 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> My point. XD Integrating support into the kernel now is adding unnecessary bloat when virtually nobody is going to be using it and those that can can just compile/load the module, or better yet, if they find it that necessary, recompile the kernel with support built-in.



great job promulgating the chicken-and-egg scenario


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2009)

Pi said:


> great job promulgating the chicken-and-egg scenario



Yes, because _obviously_ incorporating IPv6 into the Linux kernel is going to speed up adoption of IPv6.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 8, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> If Fedora 11 is using a fairly recent kernel like Ubuntu, then IPv6 is compiled into the Kernel itself.  Normally this can be disabled by adding "ipv6.disable=1" to the kernel boot options in the grub menu


There are other ways to disable IPv6, but I am not sure if these are standard across all distributions, especially since some, like Debian like to break things by poking with stuff they dont understand or failing to apply fixes and patches. Why distributions cant settle on a standard way of controlling network configuration astounds me.



Pi said:


> The linux networking stack is an embarrassment and a joke when it comes to ipv6 adoption. The BSDs do it right; there's no separate tool for firewalling v6, they take similar code paths through the kernel, ipsec (which is a required part of the v6 standard) is well-integrated.


Considering the adoption rate of IPv6 to start with, that is thankfully a non-issue for most.



Runefox said:


> Yes, because _obviously_ incorporating IPv6 into the Linux kernel is going to speed up adoption of IPv6.


And failing to incorporate it makes little difference, especially considering your typical distribution kernel.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2009)

> And failing to incorporate it makes little difference, especially considering your typical distribution kernel.


It's basically one of those things where nobody's going to touch it for another few years, and those that are playing around with it can just build/enable the modules. There's no need to clutter the kernel with that.


----------



## Pi (Aug 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Yes, because _obviously_ incorporating IPv6 into the Linux kernel is going to speed up adoption of IPv6.



Yes. Thanks for promulgating the chicken and egg scenario again. Can you see how this is the case, or do you need me to go through the proof step by step?


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2009)

Pi said:


> Yes. Thanks for promulgating the chicken and egg scenario again. Can you see how this is the case, or do you need me to go through the proof step by step?



That would be lovely, considering how you can just use a kernel module in the off chance you need it. _Compiling it into the kernel_ is not necessary at this stage in the game where IPv6 is used so infrequently as to almost not be a blip on the radar to begin with. Support is there whether it's _built into the kernel_ or not. I don't understand how this is even remotely similar to a chicken-and-egg scenario and would love to hear your explanation. Do you honestly believe that not having implicit built-in support for IPv6 in the Linux kernel is going to slow/halt IPv6 adoption?


----------



## Pi (Aug 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> That would be lovely, considering how you can just use a kernel module in the off chance you need it. _Compiling it into the kernel_ is not necessary at this stage in the game where IPv6 is used so infrequently as to almost not be a blip on the radar to begin with. Support is there whether it's _built into the kernel_ or not. I don't understand how this is even remotely similar to a chicken-and-egg scenario and would love to hear your explanation. Do you honestly believe that not having implicit built-in support for IPv6 in the Linux kernel is going to slow/halt IPv6 adoption?



Wow, I knew you were deficient at logical reasoning, but this takes the cake.

I state that having a split stack is hindering the adoption of the protocol. You state that that's fine, nobody uses the protocol anyway. HELLO?

It's clear that if v6 is available with no effort then that makes adoption and migration that much easier, especially if you're Joe Dickhead with no idea of what IP is in the first place. The BSDs, OS X, and Server 2k8 (possibly Vista and 7, but I've not used those) are with me on this - they automatically enable v6 if it's available, and make DISABLING it a power-user option.

All of this is neverminding the fact that these days Linux distributions don't compile much of ANYTHING into the kernel and use an initrd to load the necessary modules at boot...


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2009)

Pi said:


> Wow, I knew you were deficient at logical reasoning, but this takes the cake.


Mm.



> I state that having a split stack is hindering the adoption of the protocol. You state that that's fine, nobody uses the protocol anyway. HELLO?


It's actually not _hindering_ anything right now - The fact that sweeping hardware and software upgrades on the host end would be required pretty much everywhere, not to mention the fact that everyone is currently using IPv4 - Meaning that migration could be painful for some people, depending on what happens - is the major factor in lack of current support for IPv6 changeover.



> It's clear that if v6 is available with no effort


Considering that the effort that needs to be undertaken has to be undertaken at the _ISP/service_ level and has yet to be done (nor does it look like it will be any time soon, in spite of the current most popular OS shipping with IPv6 _enabled by default_), I'd say that whether or not you load IPv6 as a kernel module or build it into the kernel has zero impact on whether or not IPv6 takes off.



> adoption and migration that much easier, especially if you're Joe Dickhead with no idea of what IP is in the first place.


It's _already easier_, and Joe Dickhead with no idea of what an IP is in the first place is probably running Windows or Mac OS X, which already have support for IPv6 without any further modification - Actually, so does pretty much every Linux distro out there.



> The BSDs, OS X, and Server 2k8 (possibly Vista and 7, but I've not used those) are with me on this - they automatically enable v6 if it's available, and make DISABLING it a power-user option.


My point isn't disabling IPv6, and I don't know where you got that idea; My point is that at current time, it's not something that should be *compiled into the kernel* by default. *If it's so important to the miniscule number of people out there who complete the conditions of running Linux *and* using IPv6, just load a module*. If you're running Linux and using IPv6 at this stage in the game, and your distro hasn't already got a module enabled for that, then you know how to compile/enable it yourself.



> All of this is neverminding the fact that these days Linux distributions don't compile much of ANYTHING into the kernel and use an initrd to load the necessary modules at boot...


Isn't this _exactly_ what I've been saying? Load the module if you need it so badly. End of story.



Pi said:


> Wow, I knew you were deficient at logical reasoning, but this takes the cake.


----------

