From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 21 19:15:18 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA391065693; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:15:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from mailgw.es.net (mail1.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:201:1::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AEB8FC1A; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:910::29]) by mailgw.es.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8LJFHSp016805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:15:18 -0700 Received: from ptavv.es.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id AF60A1CC3D; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:15:17 -0700 (PDT) To: Doug Barton In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:06:43 PDT." <4C98F433.6070506@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:15:17 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20100921191517.AF60A1CC3D@ptavv.es.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Mark Kamichoff Subject: Re: BIND9 built w/--disable-ipv6 on 8.1-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:15:18 -0000 > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:06:43 -0700 > From: Doug Barton > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 9/21/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Kamichoff wrote: > | On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:34:05PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > |> | Although, that still does beg the question, > |> > |> No, it doesn't. :) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question > | > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question#Modern_usage > > Yes, especially the last bit, "Usage commentators have deemed using the > term in this way to be incorrect." :) Sadly, I must note that Edwin Newman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Newman) passed away last month. I fear the common, totally illogical use of this phrase is now a lost cause. I could care less (not sic). > |> | why don't we want IPv6 enabled by default on new BIND installations? > |> > |> It has to do with whether or not IPv6 support is compiled into the > |> FreeBSD base system which is compiling BIND. If the configure option > |> is set to enable but there is not the proper support in the base, then > |> Bad Things(TM) happen. However, the way that it is set up now if the > |> binaries are running on a system that has IPv6 support then that is > |> detected, and you can use it if you choose. If the binaries are > |> running on a system without IPv6 support, no harm, no foul. > | > | I see, that makes sense. However, as IPv6 becomes more widely used > | (perhaps quite far in the future, when folks are turning /off/ IPv4), it > | might need revisiting. > > If I'm still alive when IPv6 is the norm and IPv4 is the exception, I > promise to give it another look. :) I'd suggest looking at it when IPv6 becomes a standard part of system software and routing . That will happen long before IPv4 becomes an exception. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751