IPv6 and localhost

[Allen Kistler]

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.