From owner-freebsd-net Wed May 13 00:53:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA03751 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 00:53:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA03545; Wed, 13 May 1998 00:52:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dag-erli@ifi.uio.no) Received: from hindarfjell.ifi.uio.no (2602@hindarfjell.ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.130]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.8/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with ESMTP id JAA26467; Wed, 13 May 1998 09:51:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from dag-erli@localhost) by hindarfjell.ifi.uio.no ; Wed, 13 May 1998 09:51:16 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Petri Helenius Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Guido van Rooij , peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD References: <199805121802.UAA18013@gvr.gvr.org> <2990.894997902@time.cdrom.com> <13656.58219.715765.24138@silver.sms.fi> Organization: University of Oslo, Department of Informatics X-url: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~dag-erli/ X-Stop-Spam: http://www.cauce.org From: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) Date: 13 May 1998 09:51:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: Petri Helenius's message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 03:06:13 +0300 (EEST)" Message-ID: Lines: 30 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Petri Helenius writes: > > I appreciate that people's time is limited, especially for > > bleeding-edge issues like IPv6, but perhaps a working group could be > > formed at this point to go actually study the various options far more > > substantially before we move on to the stage of talking seriously > > about committing anything? > IPv6 is going to hit the road sometime later this year and it'd be sad > to see freebsd sitting on a bus stop at that time. Precisely. I think we need to say, "FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE will have full IPv6 support" and start doing something to make it happen. I am going to discuss this with some of the IPv6 researchers here and try to determine, in the course of the next few weeks, what the differences between the two implementions are and how significant they are. It seems clear to me that the WIDE implementation would be far easier to integrate than the INRIA implementation, so we might choose that if we're pressed for time. But we should also keep in mind that both stacks have different interfaces (e.g. different locations for IPv6 header files; INRIA places its headers in /usr/include/netinet/ and modifies some of the existing headers, whereas WIDE places its headers in /usr/include/netinet6/ and tries to modify as few existing files as possible). This means that whichever stack we choose, everyone developing software based on the other stack will either be stuck with 2.2.6 or forced to rewrite their software to some extent. The sooner we merge IPv6 into our tree, the fewer people will be inconvenienced. -- Noone else has a .sig like this one. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message