The most common approach would be binomial logistic regression:
> fit <- glm(exists ~ dist, family=binomial)
> summary(fit)
Call:
glm(formula = exists ~ dist, family = binomial)
Deviance Residuals:
1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.3814 1.0765 -1.1318 -1.1846 1.5117 -0.3907
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 0.54218 1.43780 0.377 0.706
dist -0.02501 0.02771 -0.903 0.367
(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
Null deviance: 7.6382 on 5 degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 6.4266 on 4 degrees of freedom
AIC: 10.427
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 5
So the predicted probability of a connection is $e^\eta/(1+e^\eta)$ where $\eta=0.54218-0.02501\times \mbox{dist}$.
However, from the data you give, there is no convincing evidence that the probability of a connection actually depends on distance (P=0.367).
Examining the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for the logistic regression shows a lower information loss for the null model with just an intercept:
> AIC( glm(exists ~ 1, family=binomial) )
[1] 9.63817
So, with this limited amount of data to work with, you would likely be better off ignoring distance when making the prediction.