Re: Problem with IPv6 privacy addresses in 7.0

On 5/28/26 15:32, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2026 14:29:50 +0200
> Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 5/28/26 13:29, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
>>> On 5/28/26 1:12 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:  
>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 12:46:05 +0200
>>>> Fernando Fernandez Mancera <[email protected]> wrote:  
>>>>> On 5/28/26 7:38 AM, Stefano Brivio wrote:  

>> But there are ways to fix even this, it's just that most of them are
>> ugly. Like adding some bit somewhere to /proc/ or so that a fixed
>> NetworkManager (if it's the only affected app) could flip by default to
>> change the things from the old behavior to the new one; and one pasta
>> could check that bit and warn. Config options are also an option, but
>> that's even uglier.
> 
> Actually, an eventually fixed version of NetworkManager doesn't need to
> know the behaviour of the kernel: it can just order addresses by
> timestamps instead, as Fernando mentioned.

Sure, but the trick I tried to describe is: NetworkManager knows it can
handle the new way of things (and thus avoid the regression the reporter
described at the start of the thread) and thus could at boot time tell
the kernel that by changing some bit in /proc/ -- and make it switch
from the old to the new order, so that pasta will then do the right
thing, too.

But as I said: ugly, even if that uglyness can be removed after a few years.

> Are you suggesting that we
> should anyway try to minimise the temporal impact of this with a revert?

I'd like to leave judgement here to the network maintainers, they are
better equipped to make judgment calls like this.

Ciao, Thorsten