From owner-freebsd-net Wed May 13 01:13:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA07905 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 01:13:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA07835; Wed, 13 May 1998 01:12:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA06979; Wed, 13 May 1998 01:11:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Petri Helenius cc: Guido van Rooij , peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), dag-erli@ifi.uio.no, net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 03:06:13 +0300." <13656.58219.715765.24138@silver.sms.fi> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:11:05 -0700 Message-ID: <6974.895047065@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I've been using the INRIA stuff for >6 months now and I'm happy with > that with the exception of the pain I've to go through when I need to > match -stable patches to the INRIA code which gets up-ported only > every now and then. Great, great, now go run the WIDE stuff and tell us how it compares! :-) Seriously, that's the problem here. We don't need advocates who have tried only ONE implementation comprehensively - we can find plenty of such folks already and they don't help us at all in making a decision about which implementation to back. :-( - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message