From owner-freebsd-current Sun Nov 1 11:29:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21328 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:29:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21322 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:29:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA05742; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <199811011929.OAA05742@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Chuck Robey Cc: John Hay , Garrett Wollman , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPv6 in -current In-Reply-To: References: <199811010922.LAA05107@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG < said: > This would serve to give the ideas their best airing, allow the > developers to present their cases in the lowest possible pressure > consistent with public disclosure, and probably give the loser at least > the feeling that they'd certainly been listened to, so their would be > less likelihood of injured feelings. And, FreeBSD would most likely to > get the best IPv6 implementation from it. I frankly don't care that much which IPv6 implementation is chosen. My concerns are the following: 2) that we don't screw any of the existing developers 1) that we make whatever necessary fundamental advances we can in the network stack before taking on additional deadweight -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message