Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:13:36 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, jhugo@meraka.csir.co.za, mrossi@swin.edu.au, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPv6 accept_rtadv + bfe0 Message-ID: <20111022.161336.1708295810836213738.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4EA23C08.6060906@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E9DFE11.2070203@swin.edu.au> <20111019.162942.833544516395329713.hrs@allbsd.org> <4EA23C08.6060906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_16_13_36_2011_719)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote in <4EA23C08.6060906@FreeBSD.org>: do> On 10/19/2011 00:29, Hiroki Sato wrote: do> > Mattia Rossi <mrossi@swin.edu.au> wrote do> > in <4E9DFE11.2070203@swin.edu.au>: do> > do> > mr> So the _ipv6 bit doesn't take care of passing "inet6" to ifconfig do> > mr> automatically? do> > do> > No. You always need to add the inet6 keyword wherever needed. do> do> That seems redundant, and contrary to how the IPv4 equivalents work. And do> obviously it's confusing to users. From what I can see looking at some do> 7.x and 8.x systems it also seems to be a POLA violation. do> do> Perhaps this is something that you should reconsider? I am still thinking that omitting an address family keyword before an address is a bad practice. Omitting "inet" keyword in ifconfig_IF and doing in ifconfing_IF_AF are different. The former one uses ifconfig(8)'s default AF, and bz's experiments of noinet/noinet6 environment showed it was problematic. For the latter a keyword has to be automatically prepended in the rc.d scripts if we want to do so. For IPv6, having a non-null $ifconfig_IF_ipv6 means the interface is IPv6-capable and doesn't always involve address configuration (e.g. ifconfig_IF_ipv6="up" is valid). So, automatic prepending of "inet6" breaks this. Thus, both have a bad side effect. And I want to make ifconfig accept a command line for v4->v6 and/or v6->v4 tunneling as a p2p link like "inet 10.1.1.1 2001:db8::1" for a specific type of interfaces in the future. I am not sure if it will happen actually, but omitting an AF keyword and/or automatic prepending of the keyword make things difficult. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_16_13_36_2011_719)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk6ibSAACgkQTyzT2CeTzy0XPQCgsumDkpNdP62JiuaXg9mlKdBY A+IAn0dSiHhripJ8iClGbGMOqgfl+xp/ =4blp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_16_13_36_2011_719)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111022.161336.1708295810836213738.hrs>