From owner-freebsd-net Thu May 14 02:54:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA22058 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:54:18 -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 CAA21893; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:53:12 -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 CAA03870; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:52:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Peter Wemm cc: "Matthew N. Dodd" , Bill Trost , Julian Elischer , net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 May 1998 12:47:18 +0800." <199805140447.MAA11059@spinner.netplex.com.au> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 02:52:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3866.895139535@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I guess the real question is... where do we want to end up? Do we want > to end up with a seamlessly integrated IPv6, or something that's kept at Seamless works for me, anyway. :) > arm's length? Also, there are other IPv6 implementations out there, > perhaps the most important is the Linux 2.1.x version. Where do they put > there include files? Putting our includes in a gratuitously different We're so different than Linux from the API perspective that this may well end up being something of a fool's errand. Sure, we could take substantial pains to be header-compatible with IPv6, but I think we'd only find that we were still incompatible with most of their other networking headers. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message