[sf-lug] resolver problem

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Apr 5 20:34:55 PDT 2016

Quoting Alex Kleider (akleider at sonic.net):
> On 2016-04-05 13:21, Rick Moen wrote:
> >Quoting Alex Kleider (akleider at sonic.net):
> >
> >>I've got a vexing little problem with which perhaps someone on this
> >>list might be able to help.
> >
> >This is a longshot, but perhaps some weird IPV6 failure?  Try testing
> >again using ping6 and not just ping.

I am just quoting the above suggestion in order to re-suggest it.



     The ping6 utility is intentionally separate from ping(8).

     There have been many discussions on why we separate ping6 and ping(8).
     Some people argued that it would be more convenient to uniform the ping
     command for both IPv4 and IPv6.  The followings are an answer to the

     From a developer's point of view: since the underling raw sockets API is
     totally different between IPv4 and IPv6, we would end up having two types
     of code base.  There would actually be less benefit to uniform the two
     commands into a single command from the developer's standpoint.

     From an operator's point of view: unlike ordinary network applications
     like remote login tools, we are usually aware of address family when
     using network management tools.  We do not just want to know the reacha-
     bility to the host, but want to know the reachability to the host via a
     particular network protocol such as IPv6.  Thus, even if we had a unified
     ping(8) command for both IPv4 and IPv6, we would usually type a -6 or -4
     option (or something like those) to specify the particular address fam-
     ily.  This essentially means that we have two different commands.

ISTR that /bin/ping is IPv4-only.

More information about the sf-lug mailing list